ANTONIO SANCHEZ (PETITIONER) 2. Did the Ombudsman have exclusive jurisdiction over the case?

VS. 3) Was his warrantless arrest illegal? If so, did the court acquire jurisdiction
HARRIET DEMETRIOU ET AL (RESPONDENTS) over him?
4) Was he charged with 7 homicides arising from the death of only 2 persons?
GR NO. 111771-77 NOVEMBER 9, 1993 5) Were the informations discriminatory when it didn’t include ALqueza and
CRUZ, J. Lavadia?
6) As a public officer, can he be tried for the offense only by the
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION WITH PRAYER FOR TRO/WRIT OF INJUNCTION. Sandiganbayan?

1. The Presidential Anti-Crime Commission requested the filing of appropriate RULING

charges against several persons including Sanchez in connection with the
rape-slay case of Mary Eileen Sarmenta and the killing of Allan Gomez 1. NO.
2. State Prosecutors of the DOJ conducted a prelim investigation. Sanchez - His own lawyer, Brion manifested that his client, Sanchez was
was not present but was represented by atty. Marciano Brion, Jr. waiving the presentation of counter-affidavit during the
3. 3 days later, PNP commander Rex PIad issued an “invitation” to the Preliminary investigation.
petitioner requesting him to appear for investigation at Camp Vicente Lim - Brion again said that his client is waiving the submission of
in Canlubang Laguna. It was served on Sanchez the next day and he was counter-affidavit when they were presented the statements of
immediately taken to the said camp Centeno and Malabanan.
4. That same day Sanchez was positively identified by Aurelio Centeno and - Though Sanchez was arguing that he had a different counsel
SPO3 Malabanan who both executed confessions implicating him as a during the inquest, the court held that he didn’t disown Panelo as
principal in the case. He was then placed on “arrest status” and taken to his counsel. Anyway, the accused may renounce the right to be
the DOJ of Manila. present at the preliminary investigation and he can also waive the
5. Prosecutors conducted an inquest upon his arrival. He was represented by right to present counter-affidavits or any other evidence in his
Atty. Salvador Panelo. defense
6. After said hearing, a warrant of arrest was served on Sanchez, issued by - The absence of a prelim investigation does not impair the validity
Judge Lanzanas of RTC Manila. He was taken to the CIS detention center of the information or otherwise render the same defective and
7. Prosecutors filed with the RTC of Calamba Laguna 7 infos charging Sanchez, neither does it affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case or
Luis Corcolon, Rogelio Corcolon, Pepito Kawi, Baldwin Brion, Jr., Georg constitute a ground for quashing the information.
Medialdea and Zoilo Ama with rape and killing of Sarmenta. - If no PI has been held, or it is flawed, the trial court may, on
8. Judge Sto. Domingo issued a warrant for the arrest of all the accused motion of the accused, order an investigation or reinvestigation
including the petitioner in connection with the said crime. and hold the proceedings in abeyance. Demetrious saw no reason
9. Sec of Justice expressed his concern that the trial might result in or need for such step. SC shall defer to her judgment
miscarriage of justice because of the tense and partisan atmosphere in 2. NO.
Laguna. SC ordered the transfer of the venue to Pasig, where they were - Petitioner invoked Deloso v. Domingo and argued that the
raffled to Demetriou. proceedings conducted by the DOJ were null and void because it
10. The informations were amended to include the killing of Allan Gomez. had no jurisdiction over the case. Ombudsman was vested with
11. Sanchez filed a motion to quash, but was denied hence this petition for the power to conduct investigation of all cases involving public
certiorari and prohibition w/ prayer for a TRO/writ of injunction. officers like him.
- SC: in Aquinaldo v. Domagas, the court held that the authority is
ISSUE not an exclusive authority but rather a shared or concurrent
authority in respect of the offense charged.
1. Was he denied the right to present evidence at the preliminary - Petitioner also argued that the information needed the approval
investigation? of the ombudsman.
 - SC: not necessary. Deloso v. Domingo: ombudsman has the a person:
authority to investigate charges of illegal or omissions on the part a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
of any public official. But this is not an exclusive authority. The committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
non-involvement of the ombudsman does not have any adverse commit an offense
effects upon the authority of the prosecutors to file and prosecute b. When an offense has in fact just been committed and
the info or amended info. he has no personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
- In fact, DOJ, in connection with the charge of sedition, PCGG in ill person to be arrested has committed it.
gotten wealth cases may conduct the investigation c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
3. YES and YES escapes from a penal establishment or place where he is
- Arrest is defined under sec. 1 of Rule 113 as “the taking of a serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his
person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
the commission of an offense”. Under sec. 2 of the same rule an from one confinement to another
arrest is “effected by an actual restraint of the person to be - The arresting officers were not present when the petitioner
arrested or by his voluntary submission to the person making the allegedly participated in the killing of Allan Gomez and the Rape-
arrest. slay of Mary Eileen Sarmenta. Also the crime was alleged to have
application of actual force, manual touching of the body, physical been committed 46 days before the date of the arrest, it cannot
restraint or a formal declaration of arrest is not, required. It is not be said that the offense had in fact just been committed.
enough that there be an intent on the part of one of the parties to - The original warrantless arrest of the petitioner was doubtlessly
arrest the other and an intent on the part of the others to submit, illegal, but the RTC lawfully acquired jurisdiction over him by
under the belief and impression that submission is necessary. virtue of the warrant of arrest it issued on Aug. 26, 1993. It was
- Sanchez was taken to Camp Vicente by virtue of a letter- belated but nonetheless legal.
investigation issued by PNP commander Piad requiring him to - Even if we assume that no warrant was issued at all, we find that
appear at the said camp the trial court still lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of
- Babst v. NIB: an invitation to attend a hearing and answer some the petitioner. If the accused objects to the jurisdiction of the
questions, which the person invited may heed or refuse at this court over his person, he may move to quash the info but ONLY
pleasure, is not illegal or constitutionally objectionable. Under ON THAT GROUND. The accused in this case raised other grounds
different circumstances it assumes a different appearance. Where in the motion to quash, he is deemed to have waived that
the invitation comes from a powerful group composed objection and to have submitted his person to the jurisdiction of
predominantly of ranking military officers issued at a time when the court.
the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus has not been - The issuance of the correspondent warrant of arrest, against one
entirely lifted, and the designated interrogation site is a military who was invalidly detained will cure the defect of that detention
camp, the same can be easily taken not as a strictly voluntary or at least deny him the right to be released because of such
invitation which it purports to be, but as an authoritative defect. Release of the petitioner for the reason that the first
comment which one can only defy at his peril. warrant of arrest was invalid will be a futile act as it will be
- In this case, the invitation came from a high-ranking military followed by his immediate re-arrest pursuant to the new and valid
official and the investigation of Sanchez was to be made at a warrant.
military camp. It was obviously a command or an order of arrest 4. NO.
that the petitioner could hardly be expected to defy. - Sanchez interpreted it wrongly. Rape was complexed with
- He was placed on “arrest status” eventually at Camp Vicente Lim homicide, therefore there will be as many crimes of rape with
and he had been “arrested” homicide as there are rapes committed. Homicide loses its
- SC agreed that his arrest didn’t come under Sec. 5, rule 113 of the character as an independent offense but now qualifies the crime
ROC of rape. Rape with homicide is included in the exceptions
 Sec. 5 Arrest without warrant; when lawful.—A peace provided by sec. 13 of Rule 110 (re: duplicity of offense).
officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest
 - Each of the seven accused is being charged separately for actually
raping Sarmenta and later killing her instead of merely assisting
Sanchez in raping and then slaying her. The seven rapes were
committed in succession by the seven accused culminating in the
slaying of Sarmenta.
- It is absurd to think that they were killed seven times. But the
infos do not suggest this.
5. NO.
- Can’t file an information against a person when the prosecutor
didn’t find probable cause to file a case against said person
- It is preposterous to argue that because no charges have been
filed against Alqueza and Lavadia, the charges against him and his
co-accused should also be dropped.
6. NO.
- SB has exclusive original jurisdiction over: 1) violations of the anti-
graft and corrupt practices act (RA 3019), and Corrupt practices
Act RA 1379 and Chapter II sec. 2 Title VII of the RPC; 2) offenses
or felonies committed by public officers and employees in relation
to their office…
- Rape with homicide does not deal with graft and corruption nor it
is an offense committed in relation to the office of Sanchez.
- Montilla v. Hilario: public office is not of the essence of murder.
Taking of human life is either murder or homicide whether done
by a private citizen or public servant, and the penalty is the same.
Abuse of office is not an element of homicide and even as an
aggravating circumstance, its materiality arises not from the
allegations but on the proof that the manner of the commission of
the crime indeed abused his office.
- In this case the offense can stand independently of the office.
there were no allegations that the crime of rape with homicide
imputed to him was connected with the discharge of his functions
as municipal mayor or that there is an intimate connection
between the offense and his office.

Held: Petition DISMISSED. Demetriou directed to continue with the trial of crim
cases and to decide them with deliberate dispatch.