People v. Magallanes et al., G.R. Nos. 118013-14, Oct. 11, 1995

Crim Pro - Jurisdiction

Facts:

Accused P/Col. Nicolas Torres is the Station Commander of PNP Bacolod City Station. The spouses Charles and Jeanette Dumancas complained in Torres' station that they were swindled by a group of men. Induced by the spouses who filed a complaint, Torres instructed his men to look for Rufino Gargar and Danilo Lumangyao who were suspected to be members of the group who swindled the couple. So, the other co-defendants arrested and abducted Gargar and Lumangyao. Also upon order by Torres, the two suspects were brought to Dragon Lodge Motel where they were investigated by the other defendants. 

          Later, they were transferred to the Ceres Compound where Jeanette Dumancas identified Lumangyao as a member of the group who swindled her. When he asked about the money that was taken from her, Lumangyao replied that the money was already divided among his partners long time ago. Later, the two suspects were killed and Torres instructed his men who were present in the crime committed that they should hide because the NBI is after them. When the informations were filed against the accused, the prosecution presented a co-conspirator, Moises Grandeza, as its witness. 

            On June 24, 1994, the private prosecutors moved for the transmittal of the records of the cases to the Sandiganbayan on the ground that, pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Republic of the Philippines vs. Asuncion, "the trial court has no jurisdiction over the cases because the offenses charged were committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP officers".

            On August 15, 1994, the trial court Judge ruled that the Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction over the subject cases because the informations filed "do not state the offenses were committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP officers". The Judge held, citing People vs. Montilla, that the allegation stated in the informations that the PNP officers took advantage of their office in their commission of the offense is merely an allegation of an aggravating circumstance. Moreover, the Judge also held that "public office is not a constituent element of the offense of kidnapping with murder nor is the said offense intimately connected with the office". 

            On September 7, 1994, the prosecution moved for a reconsideration citing the ruling on People vs. Montejo. But, it was denied too by the trial court claiming that there is no intimate connection between the offense charged and the position of the accused and that the informations emphasized that the accused were "moved by selfish motives of ransom and extortion". Hence, the prosecution filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with a prayer for a temporary restraining order challenging the refusal of the respondent Judge to transfer the cases to the Sandiganbayan.

Issue: Whether or not the offense committed by the PNP officers were done in relation to their office.

Held. No. The Supreme Court held that “[i]t is an elementary rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information, and not by the result of evidence after trial.”

            The case is not the same as Montejo as the information only alleged that the accused abducted, kidnapped, detained the victims for the purpose of extorting money. Having failed to achieve their purpose, they shot and killed the victims. According to the Supreme Court, “[f]or the purpose of determining jurisdiction, it is these allegations that shall control, and not the evidence presented by the prosecution at the trial.”