Zapatos vs. People

USA College of Law
PEDROSO 1-F
Case Name Zapatos vs. People
Topic Right against Double Jeopardy
Case No. | Date G.R. Nos. 147814-15 | September 16, 2003
Ponente SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
There can be no double jeopardy where the accused entered a plea in court that had no
Doctrine
jurisdiction.
RELEVANT FACTS
 In two separate Informations, Special Prosecution Officer Gualberto J. Dela Llana charged both
petitioner and Victoriano Vidal with murder and frustrated murder
 On arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Forthwith, trial ensued. The case for the prosecution
is woven basically on the testimony of Socrates Platero. Building his case on the justifying
circumstance of self-defense, petitioner presented a different version. Pacheco Tan corroborated
petitioners testimony.
 Consequently, two Informations for frustrated murder and murder, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos.
414 and 415, were filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch VII, Bayugan Agusan del Sur.
Pursuant to this Courts Resolution dated August 2, 1990, the venue was transferred to the RTC,
Branch V, Butuan City where the cases were docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 4194 and 4195.
Before petitioner could be arraigned, the private prosecutor filed with the RTC a motion to refer
the cases to the Sandiganbayan but it was denied in an Order dated March 11, 1991. Petitioner was
then arraigned and pleaded not guilty to both charges.
 The private prosecutor filed with this Court a petition for certiorari questioning the order of the
RTC, but the same was dismissed. This time, the public prosecutor filed with the RTC an Omnibus
Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. On August 9, 1991, the RTC issued an
Omnibus Order granting the motion and dismissing Criminal Cases Nos. 4194 and 4195. This
prompted Special Prosecution Officer Dela Llana to file with the Sandiganbayan the two
Informations.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
Petitioner assails the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over his cases on the
ground that the crimes imputed to him were not committed in relation to his
office.
Whether or not the
honorable Well-settled is the principle that the jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is
sandiganbayan determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action. Here,
gravely erred in not the applicable law is Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1606: SECTION 4. Jurisdiction.
finding that double The Sandiganbayan shall exercise:
jeopardy has already
attached and that it a) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
had no jurisdiction
over the cases (1) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2,
Title VII of the Revised Penal Code;
USA College of Law
PEDROSO 1-F
(2) Other offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees in
relation to their office, including those employed in government-owned or
controlled corporations, whether simple or complexed with other crimes, where
the penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment
for six (6) years, or a fine of P6,000.00...
The Informations filed with the Sandiganbayan allege that petitioner, then a public
officer, committed the crimes of murder and frustrated murder in relation to his
office, i.e., as Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer of the DENR.
It is apparent from this allegation that the offenses charged are intimately
connected with petitioners office and were perpetrated while he was in the
performance of his official functions. In its Resolution dated August 25, 1992, the
Sandiganbayan held that petitioner was on duty during the incident; that the DENR
Checkpoint was put up in order to prevent incursions into the forest and wooded
area; and that petitioner, as a guard, was precisely furnished with a firearm in
order to resist entry by force or intimidation. Indeed, if petitioner was not on duty
at the DENR checkpoint on January 14, 1990, he would not have had the bloody
encounter with Mayor Cortez and his men. Thus, based on the allegations in the
Informations, the Sandiganbayan correctly assumed jurisdiction over the cases.
Significantly, while petitioner had already pleaded not guilty before the RTC,
jeopardy did not attach as it did not acquire jurisdiction. There can be no double
jeopardy where the accused entered a plea in court that had no jurisdiction.
RULING
ACQUITTED

Zapatos vs. People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zapatos vs. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USA College of Law

You might also like