Regional Trial Court's venue for public officer's crime (RA No. 10660)
Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure says
that,
when a law specifically provides a venue, then the criminal action shall be instituted in such place.
SEC. 15. Place where action is to be instituted. —
(a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.
According to the Supreme Court, Section 2 of R.A. No. 10660 clearly provides
that the RTC has original and exclusive jurisdiction when the information
either: (a) does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or
(b) alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or
closely related transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding One Million
Pesos (P1,000,000.00). Moreover, such cases falling within the jurisdiction of
the RTC shall be tried in a judicial region other than the place
where the accused official holds office.
R.A. No. 10660 took effect
in 2015. In the Non v. Ombudsman case, when the Information against
petitioners was filed in 2018, petitioners were still Commissioners of the
ERC, holding office in Ortigas, Pasig City. The Information also did not
allege any amount of damage to the government, or any bribery. Applying
Section 2 of R.A. No. 10660, the Information against petitioners should have
been filed in a judicial region outside of the National Capital Judicial
Region. Since jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law, the established
rule is that the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the
action determines the jurisdiction of the court.[3]
It was also
held that the proviso ''subject to the rules promulgated by the Supreme
Court" should not stand as a hindrance to the application of the clear
intention of the law.
The Senate deliberations on R.A. No. 10660
support the view that the RTC's jurisdiction under said law shall be tried in
a judicial region outside of the place where the accused public official holds
office.
As regards the amendment on page 3, lines 28 to 31, on the trial of cases falling within the jurisdiction of the RTC in a judicial region other than where the official holds office, Senator Angara believed that the basic reasoning behind the provision is to prevent a public official from exerting influence over the RTC judge who is hearing the case. Senator Pimentel agreed, saying that it is the assumption of the amendment.
Senator Angara expressed concern that the proposed amendment could be used as harassment against a public official. For instance, he noted that if cases are filed against a mayor or governor x x x in Region III and these cases are referred to RTCs in Regions I, II and IV, that would entail substantial expenses and time on their part. Senator Pimentel explained that the provision would only apply when there is already an information and it could not be considered harassment because those cases would have to go through the Ombudsman. He stated that under existing procedures, there are sufficient safeguards in detailing with such kind of situation, and he believed that the Ombudsman would not file harassment cases. Besides, not all cases filed with the Sandiganbayan lead to convictions, he said.[4]
Contrary to the interpretation of the respondent judge and the Ombudsman, the applicability of R.A. No. 10660 is not conditioned upon the promulgation of rules by the Court. As was declared in Government Service Insurance System v. Daymiel:[5]
Jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred by the Constitution or the law, and rules of procedure yield to substantive law. Otherwise stated, jurisdiction must exist as a matter of law. Only a statute can confer jurisdiction on courts and administrative agencies.
If the application of R.A. No. 10660 shall be put on hold while waiting for
the Supreme Court to promulgate the necessary rules, then the former would be
rendered nugatory by the mere expediency of the Supreme Court's non-issuance
of such rules. This would result in an absurd situation in which the force and
effect of the law depends on the Judiciary, which is clearly not the intention
of the framers of the law in placing the proviso. Sure, the Supreme Court
would not tolerate such a scenario; after all, the Judicial Branch cannot
enlarge, diminish, or dictate when jurisdiction shall be removed, given that
the power to define, prescribe, and apportion jurisdiction is, as a general
rule, a matter of legislative prerogative.[6]
However, it must be noted that there arguments against the Supreme Court's conclusion in the Non case.[7]
[1] https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2021/08/gr-no-251177-september-08-2020.html.
[2] https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2021/08/ra-no-10660-april-16-2015.html.
[3] Anama v. Citibank, N.A., 822 Phil. 630, 640 (2017).
[4] https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2021/08/gr-no-251177-september-08-2020.html.
[5] G.R. No. 218097, March 11, 2019.
[6] Gonzales v. GJH Land, Inc., 772 Phil. 483, 510 (2015).
[7] https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2021/08/scs-error-in-non-v-ombudsman-other.html.