62.
Cunanan v Arceo (Shot and killed; He was a police; Judge Arceo conducted a hearing solely to
ascertain if it was committed in relation to his office; material fact)
Facts: Petitioner had committed the offense charged while he was in the performance of his duties as a
policeman. Petitioner had shot and killed the victim in the course of trying to restore local public order
which had been breached by a fistfight between the victim and two other individuals. An information for
Murder was filed against petitioner Ferdinand Cunanan before the RTC of San Fernando, Pampanga. The
Information alleged that petitioner was a member of the Philippine National Police; it contained no
averment that he had committed the offense charged in relation to his public office. Petitioner entered a
plea of not guilty at arraignment and trial proceeded thereafter.
On 11 March 1994, the Supreme Court promulgated its En Banc Decision in Republic v. Hon. Asuncion, et
al which laid down the rule that the Sandiganbayan has exclusive and original jurisdiction to take
cognizance of offenses committed by public officers in relation to their office, where the penalty prescribed
by law is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment of 6 years or more or a fine of P6,000.00.
The Supreme Court further held that in the event an Information failed to allege that the accused-public
officer had committed the offense charged in relation to his office, the RTC hearing the criminal case,
pending at the time of the promulgation of the Asuncion rule, shall conduct a preliminary hearing to
determine the existence or absence of this material fact . If this material fact is found to be present, the
RTC shall order the transfer of the case to the Sandiganbayan for docketing, and the latter shall proceed to
hear the case as if the same had been originally instituted with it. If it be determined that that fact is
absent, the RTC seized with the case shall proceed with the trial and render judgment on the case.
Judge Arceo proceeded to apply these holdings in Criminal Case No. 5708 by conducting a hearing solely
to ascertain if petitioner had committed the offense charged in relation to his office . He ruled that on the
basis of the evidence adduced during the trial, petitioner had committed the offense charged while in the
performance of his official functions. He then held that the RTC had no jurisdiction to try this case and that,
accordingly, any decision it may render thereon would be null and void. Judge Arceo dismissed Criminal
Case No. 5708 "for refiling with the Sandiganbayan," pursuant to the Asuncion ruling.
Petitioner contends that jurisdiction over the case was fixed in the RTC by the terms of the Information
for Murder, which contained no averment that he had committed the felony in relation to his office, and
that such jurisdiction is not determined by the result of the evidence presented at the trial. He also cites
the Court's pronouncement in Sanchez v. Hon. Demetriou, et al, that the use or abuse of public office does
not inhere in the crime of Murder as an element.
Issue: Whether an information not alleging that the offense has been committed in relation to the public
office would bar the offense from being brought within the meaning of an offense committed in relation
to the public office. (In the case)
Whether averments of the information could bring the offense within the meaning of an offense
committed in relation to the public office. (In Riano)
Ruling: 1. No. Whenever 2 requisites concur, the offenses mentioned thereunder fall within the exclusive
and original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan: (a) the offense must have been committed by the accused
public officer in relation to his office; and (b) the penalty prescribed for the offense charged is higher
than prision correccional or imprisonment for 6 years or a fine of P6,000.
Whenever the above 2 requisites are present, jurisdiction over the offense is vested in the Sandiganbayan.
This is true even though the information originally filed before the RTC did not aver that the accused public
officer had committed the offense charged in relation to his office. It was precisely to address this situation
that the Supreme Court in Asuncion fashioned the rule directing the conduct of a preliminary or separate
hearing by a trial court to determine the presence or absence of that jurisdictional element.
Respondent RTC judges had forwarded petitioner's case to the Sandiganbayan, and the complete records
transmitted thereto in accordance with the directions of this Court set out in the Asuncion case: " As if it
was originally filed with [the Sandiganbayan].
2. Yes.Public office is not an element of the crime of murder, since murder may be committed by any
person. However, the averments of the information could bring the offense within the meaning of an "an
offense committed in relation to the public office'' and thus, the offense would fall within the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan.
