Laurel v Desierto digest

Laurel v. Desierto

GR No. 145368, April 12, 2002

Facts:

Petitioner Vice-President Salvador Laurel was appointed as the head of the National Centennial Commission, a body constituted for the preparation of the National Centennial celebration in 1998. He was subsequently appointed as the Chairman of ExpoCorp., and was one of the nine (9) incorporators. A controversy erupted on the alleged anomalies with the bidding contracts to some entities and the petitioner was implicated. By virtue of an investigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman, the petitioner was indicted for alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019). The petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss questioning the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman, which was denied. He further filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied, hence this petition for certiorari.

The petitioner assails the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and contended that he is not a public officer since ExpoCorp is a private corporation.

Issue: W/N the petitioner is a public officer

Yes, the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the case of the petitioner since he is a public officer. The NCC is an office performing executive functions since one of its mandate is to implement national policies. Moreover, the said office was established by virtue of an executive order. It is clear that the NCC performs sovereign functions, hence it is a public office. Since petitioner is chair of the NCC, he is therefore a public officer. The fact that the NCC was characterized by EO 128 as an 'ad-hoc body' make it less of a public office. Finally, the fact that the petitioner did not receive any compensation during his tenure is of no consequence since such is merely an incidence and forms no part of the office.

People v Veridiano Digest

G.R. L-62243, October 12, 1984

Effectivity of laws

At issue in this case is the applicability of BP 22 which was circulated a month after private respondent issued the dishonored check.

Facts:

1.             On or about the 2nd week of May 1979, private respondent Benito Go Bio Jr. issued a check amounting to P200, 000 to one Filipinas Tan. Said check was subsequently dishonored and despite repeated demands, the respondent failed to make the necessary payment. Hence, the filing of charges against him for violation of B.P. 22 or the Bouncing Check law.

2.             Go Bio filed a Motion to Quash alleging that the information did not charge an offence on ground that BP 22 has not yet taken effect when the offense was committed on May 1979. Said law took into effect on June 29, 1979. The prosecution opposed the motion and contended that the date of the dishonor of the check -- September 26, 1979, is the date of the commission of the offense, hence BP 22 is applicable.

3.             The respondent judge granted Go Bio's motion and dismissed the criminal action hence, this petition. Petitioner contends that BP 22 was published in the Official Gazette on April 4, 1979, and hence became effective 15 days thereafter or on April 24, 1979. PR contends however that said publication was only released on June 14, 1979 but since the questioned check was issued about the second week of May 1979, then he could not have violated BP 22 because it was not yet released for circulation at the time.

Issue: W/N BP 22 was already in effect when the offense was committed

NO. 

The penal statute in question was circulated only on June 14, 1979 and not on its printed date of April 9, 1979. Publication of the law is necessary so that the public can be apprised of the contents of a penal statute before it can be bound by it. If a statute had not been published before its violation, then in the eyes of the law there was no such law to be violated. Hence, the accused could not have committed the alleged crime. In effect, when the alleged offense was committed there was still no law penalizing it. If BP 22 intended to make the printed date of issue of the Official Gazette as the point of reference in the determination of its the effectivity, it could have provided a special effectivity provision. Finally, the term "publication" in BP 22 must be given the ordinary accepted meaning, to make known to the people in general.

Kinds of Jurisdiction

Classification of jurisdiction as to Nature

General
This refers to the court's power to adjudicate all controversies except those cases that are expressly witheld from the powers o a court.

Special
The court can hear and decide particular cases subject to limitations provided by law.

Original Jurisdiction
The court has the power to take cognizance of a case instituted for the first time under conditions provided by law

Appellate
The court of a higher rank has the authority to revie the final judgment or order of a lower court which took cognizance of the case in the first instance.

Exclusive Jurisdiction
The power of the court to take cognizance of a case to the exclusion of all other courts.

Concurrent
The power granted upon different courts, of the same or different ranks, to hear and decide a case, in the same or different judicial territories.

Territorial Jurisdiction
The power of the court to exercise its authority over a given geographical area. In criminal cases, territorial jurisdiction is very important since the place where the crime was committed determines both the venue and the jurisdiction of the court.