FACTS:

The case at bar originated from an information filed in the Regional Trial Court at Pasig charging petitioners Rafael Baylosis and
motion to quash and a motion for reconsideration was also denied. Hence, Baylosis and de Vera
instituted this special action of certiorari , prohibition and mandamus.

ISSUE: WON PD No. 1866, or at least par. 3 of Section 1 thereof, is unconstitutional for being
violative of due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution.

HELD:
The issue of constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 1866 has been laid to rest in
the
case of Misolas v. Panga, G.R. No. 83341, January 30, 1990 (181 SCRA 648), where this Court
held that the declaration of unconstitutionality of the third paragraph of Section 1 of
Presidential Decree No. 1866 is wanting in legal basis since it is neither a bill of attainder nor
does it provide a possibility of a double jeopardy.
P.D. No. 1866 does not possess the elements of a bill of attainder. It does not seek to
inflict punishment without a judicial trial. Nowhere in the measure is there a finding of guilt
and an imposition of a corresponding punishment. What the decree does is to define the
offense and provide for the penalty that may be imposed, specifying the qualifying
circumstances that would
pardy because it had not arisen. Moreover, even if such a subsequent or second jeopardy does arise, P.D. No. 1866 will not be rendered unconstituti
 G.R. No. 128096 (January 20, 1999)
PANFILO M. LACSON et al. vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY et al.

FACTS:
On May 18, 1995, alleged eleven (11) members of Kuratong Baleleng gang, an organized
crime syndicate involved in bank robberies in Metro Manila were slain by elements of Anti-Bank
Robbery and Intelligence Task Group. On media expose however, it was alleged that what
actually transpired was a summary execution or rub out. This implicated Lacson among others as
guilty for multiple murder. The office of the Ombudsman conducted an investigation and
recommended the indictment for multiple murder charged as principals before the
Sandiganbayan. This information was amended after re-investigation and petitioner herein was
charged as accessory.
In 1997, R.A. 8249 was passed which basically expanded the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. The law was authored by Lagman and Neptali Gonzales. Lacson assailed the
law as it was introduced by the authors thereof in bad faith as it was made to precisely suit
the situation in which petitioner’s cases were in at the Sandiganbayan by restoring jurisdiction
thereover to it, thereby violating his right to procedural due process and the equal protection
clause of the Constitution. Further, from the way the Sandiganbayan has foot-dragged for
nine (9) months the resolution of a pending incident involving the transfer of the cases to the
Regional Trial Court, the passage of the law may have been timed to overtake such
resolution to render the issue therein moot, and frustrate the exercise of petitioner’s vested
rights  under the old Sandiganbayan law (R.A. 7975).

ISSUES:
WON the right to equal protection of the law by Lacson et al. has been violated with the passage of R.A. 8249.
WON the retroactive application of R.A. 8249 to the Kuratong Baleleng a case constitutes an ex post facto law.
WON R.A. 8249 violates the one-title-one-subject provisions of the Constitution.
WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the multiple murder case.

who challenges the law must present proof of arbitrariness. Since it is within the power of Congress to define the jurisdiction of courts subject to th

2. There is nothing ex post facto  in R.A. 8249 because as defined, ex post facto  law is
limited in its score only to matters criminal in nature. R.A. 8249 is a substantive law on
jurisdiction which is not penal in character. Penal laws are those acts of the Legislature which
prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violations; or those that define crimes,
treat of their nature, and provide for their punishment. Not being a penal law, the retroactive
application of R.A. 8249 cannot be challenged as unconstitutional.
 3.R.A. 8249 does not violate the one-title-one-subject provisions of the Constitution.
Constitutional provisions relating to the subject matter and titles of statutes should not be so
narrowly construed as to cripple or impede the power of legislation. The requirement that the
subject of an act shall be expressed in its title should receive a reasonable and not a
technical construction. The Court has previously ruled that the one-subject requirement under
the Constitution is satisfied if all the parts of the statute are related, and are germane to the
subject matter expressed in the title, or as long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to
the general subject and title. There is here sufficient compliance with such requirement, since
the title of R.A. 8249 expresses the general subject (involving the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan and the amendment of P.D. 1606, as amended) and all the provisions of the
law are germane to that general subject. The Congress, in employing the word “define” in the
title of the law, acted within its powers since Section 2, Article VIII of the Constitution itself
empowers the legislative body to “define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of various
courts”.

4.While Jurisdiction of the court is defined by the Constitution or Statute, the

elementary rule is that jurisdiction of a court is determined by allegations in the complaint or
information, and not by the evidence presented by the parties at the trial. . The mere
allegation in the amended information that the offense was committed by the accused public
officers in relation to their office is not sufficient. In determining jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan,
what is controlling is the specific factual allegation in the information that would indicate the
close intimacy between the discharge of the official duties and the commission of the offense
charged. For failure to show in the amended information that the charge of murder was
intimately connected with the discharged of official functions of the accused (Sec.4, par. b of
R.A. 8249), the offense charged in the subject criminal cases is plain murder and, therefore,
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), not the
Sandiganbayan. Hence, the petition is GRANTED and the case was transferred to the RTC.
G.R. No. L-52413, September 26, 1981
MELITON C. GERONIMO vs. COMELEC and JULIAN C. PENDRE

FACTS:
On January 8, 1980, private respondent Julian Pendre filed a petition with the
Commission
on Elections (COMELEC) to disqualify petitioner Meliton C. Geronimo from running as a
candidate for the mayorship of Baras, Rizal on the ground of political turncoatism. After
hearing the petition, the COMELEC on January 19. 1980 issued Resolution No. 8305
disqualifying Meliton C Geronimo. On January 22, 1980, Geronimo filed a motion to reconsider
the said resolution, and on January 28, 1980 or two days before the elections, he filed with
this Court a petition for certiorari to restrain the COMELEC from implementing its resolution
to which the former has granted the same day. In the elections of January 30, 1980,
Geronimo obtained a margin of 325 votes when he garnered 2,695 votes as against his
opponent Bayani Ferrera's 2,370 votes. On March 11, 1980, the COMELEC issued
Resolution No. 9554, reinstating the proclamation made earlier by the Municipal Board of
Canvassers of Baras, Rizal in favor of Geronimo as the winning candidate for mayor but the
proclamation was declared temporary subject to the decision of this Court on the petition for
certiorari filed by Geronimo. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: WON the COMELEC has acted with grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying
petitioner from running for the office of mayor of Baras, Rizal, and in refusing to give due
course to his certificate of candidacy for the said position.

HELD:
SC find that there was no grave abuse of discretion committed by the COMELEC in
disqualifying petitioner Geronimo since there was substantial evidence in support of the same
. The matter of disqualification of petitioner is based on Section 10, Article XIIC of the 1973
Constitution, declaring that: “No elective public officer may change his political party
affiliation during his term of office, and no candidate for any elective public office may change
his political party affiliation within six months immediately preceding or   following an election.”
and Batas Pambansa Blg. 52, adopting the aforesaid constitutional prohibition on political
turncoatism as one of the special disqualification of local candidates running for elective
positions. Petitioner contends that KBL is not a political party, hence, he is not guilty of
violating the constitutional and statutory prohibitions on turncoatism when he affiliated to NP;
consequently, he should not be disqualified from running for the office of mayor of Baras,
Rizal. The contention is without merit. There being a clear showing of petitioner's affiliation
with the KBL as a political party as fully established by his three aforequoted letters and his
admissions by himself or through his counsel in his pleadings and at the hearing before the
COMELEC, and having subsequently affiliated with the Nacionalista Party as shown by his
certificate of candidacy for municipal mayor of Baras, subscribed and sworn to , his political
turncoatism is undeniable, thus warranting his disqualification as a candidate for the office of
mayor of Baras, Rizal.
Hence, the petition is DISMISSED and the TRO of January 28, 1980 is hereby lifted.
FACTS:

The presidential election of 1992 was clouded with much uncertainty as to who is
the real winner. However, Congress sitting as Board of Canvassers proclaimed
Fidel V. Ramos as duly elected President of the Republic. Protestant filed before
the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) for annulment of proclamation on grounds
of massive fraud and electoral sabotage among others. While the election
contest is still pending, Miriam Defensor-Santiago was elected Senator of the
Republic in the mid-term election in 1995.

ISSUE:

WON by assuming the position of a Senator, did Defensor-Santiago have

effectively abandoned her Presidential Election protest?

HELD:

 YES. An election contest involves a public office in which the public has an
interest. In the case at bar, when protestant entered into a political contract
with the electorate as Senator, she impliedly waives her vested right to the
election contest. More so, corollary to her position is the discharge of her
functions. In assuming the office of the Senator then, the Protestant has
effectively abandoned or withdrawn the protest, or at very least, abandoned
her determination to protect or pursue the public interest involved in the
matter of who is the real choice of the electorate. Such abandonment or
withdrawal operates to render moot and academic the instant case.
Moreover, the resolution of this protest would serve public interest as it would
dissipate the aura of uncertainty as to the results of the 1992 presidential elections.
Petition was DISMISSED.

FACTS:

Both Joselito Mendoza and Roberto Pagdanganan vied for the position of Governor
of the province ofBulacan. Petitioner was proclaimed winner and assumed the
office. Subsequently, protestant filed an election protest with the COMELEC
involving contested precinct counts and appreciation of ballots  .After strict
compliance, the case was thereafter submitted for resolution. However, pursuant to
yet another election contest in the Senate, COMELEC transferred ballot boxes to
Senate and continue the proceedings after proper coordination with SET.
ISSUE:

WON COMELEC has a concurrent jurisdiction on a provincial election protest at the

SET premises.

HELD:

 YES. The physical transfer of the ballots and other election materials to the SET
for purposes of its own revision becomes a non-issue, given the arrangement
between the COMELEC and the SET to coordinate and make arrangements
so as not to delay or interrupt the revisions of ballots. The Court ruled that the
COMELEC’s action was valid exercise of jurisdiction as it is suitable and
reasonable process within the exercise of its jurisdiction over provincial
election contest, aimed at expediting the disposition and with no prejudicial
effects on the parties. What transpired in the SET premises is not revision or
correction but deliberation of the merits of the provincial election contest. The
court sees no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. The petition was DISMISSED.

FACTS:

Jimmy De Castro was proclaimed mayor of Gloria, Oriental Mindoro in 1995

election. His rival, Nicolas Jamilla filed an election protest before the RTC,
however, during the pendency of the case, the latter died. The RTC dismissed
the case as the case was rendered moot and academic for the death of the
protestant extinguishes the case itself.

ISSUE:

WON election contest survives the death of the protestant or the protestee.

HELD:

 YES. An election protest is not purely personal and exclusive to the parties such
that the death of either would oust the court of all authority to continue the
protest proceedings; rather, it is imbued with paramount public interest.
Moreover, broad perspectives of public policy impose upon courts the imperative
duty to ascertain by all means within their command who the real candidate
elected. Finally, the Court ruled that the determination of who among the
candidates has been in fact elected is a matter clothed with public interest,
wherefore; public policy demands an election contest, duly commenced, be not
abated by death of the contestant. The petition was DISMISSED.
FACTS:

Claudius Barroso and Emerico Escobillo were candidates for mayor of

the municipality of Tampakan, Cotabato in the 1998 elections. Petitioner won the
election and subsequently, private respondent protested the result and filed several
cases. Among those filed were election protest in the RTC, pre-proclamation
protests in COMELEC, disqualification alleging election offenses and criminal
complaints with the Law Department of the COMELEC.

ISSUE:

WON election contest be dismissed on grounds of forum shopping.

HELD:

NO. An election contest, unlike an ordinary civil action, is clothed with public
interest. The purpose of an election protest is to ascertain whether the candidate
proclaimed by the Board of Canvassers was the lawful choice of the people. An
election protest therefore involves not only the adjudication of private and
pecuniary interest of rival candidate but paramount to their claim is the deep
public concern involved and the need of dispelling the uncertainty over the real
choice of the electorate.Therefore, the Rules on Civil Procedure generally do not
apply to election cases. They apply only by analogy or in suppletory character
and whenever practicable and convenient.
More so, it is neither fair nor just to keep in office for an uncertain period of
time whose right to it is under suspicion. This can only be achieved upon
resolution of the case by brushing aside technicalities of procedure.   The
petition was DISMISSED.

FACTS:

The election of fifteen directors for the ensuing year was taken up during the annual
meeting of the stockholders of San Miguel Corporation. Petitioners and
respondents were among the nominees to the board but after the canvassed of the
vote cast, only those nominated by PCGG under the sequestered assets
(recovered ill gotten wealth) were declared to have been elected. Petitioner filed
before the Sandiganbayan a petition for quo warranto.

ISSUE:

WON Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over petitions for quo warranto.

HELD:
 YES.  The rule that Sandiganbayan cannot exercise jurisdiction over petitions
for quo warranto is not without exception. It is a well settled jurisprudence
that the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Sandiganbayan would
evidently extend not only to the principal causes of action like recovery of
alleged ill- gotten wealth, but also to all incidents arising from, incidental to, or
related to, such cases, such as the dispute over the sale of shares, the
propriety of the issuance of ancillary writs thereto, the sequestration thereof.
The court ruled that any attempt to remove special actions, similarly involving
the powers and functions of the PCGG from the Sandiganbayan’s exclusive
jurisdiction would be of no avail. The petition was GRANTED.

FACTS:

Edward Serapio was a member of the Board of Trustees and the Legal Counsel of
Erap Muslim Youth Foundation. This foundation was established to help provide
educational opportunities for the poor and underprivileged but deserving Muslim
youth and students. Donations came pouring in from various institutions,
organizations and that of Chavit Singson. However, on the latter part of
2000, Chavit accused then President Estrada and his cohorts of engaging in
the illegal number game jueteng as protector, beneficiary and recipient.  The
Ombudsman took the necessary steps and find probable cause, thus the case of
plunder before the Sandiganbayan.

The accused, herein petitioner took all legal remedy to bail but consequently due
to numerous petitions and motion to quash, the same was suspended and
counter petitioned. Petitioner also prayed for issuance of habeas corpus.

ISSUE:

WON petitioner should be arraigned first before hearing his petition for bail;

WON petitioner may file a motion to quash the amended information

during pendency of his petition to bail; and

WON petitioner should instead be released through a writ of habeas corpus.

HELD:

A.  Although he was already arraigned, no plea has yet been entered thereby
rendering the case moot. Nonetheless, the court takes cognizance and held
that arraignment is not a prerequisite to conduct hearing on petition for bail.

B. The court finds no inconsistency between an application of an accused for

bail and his filing of motion to quash. Bail, is a security given to release a
person in custody of the law. A motion to quash on the other hand is a mode
by which
C. In exceptional cases, habeas corpus may be granted by the court even when the
person is detained pursuant to a valid arrest or his voluntary surrender. However, in the case at bar, there is n

MELITON C. GERONIMO, petitioner, vs. JULIAN PENDRE,

 AND THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,

Permanent Vacancy in the Office of the Governor, City or Municipal Mayor Rule