ROGELIO JUAN, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent, G.R. No. 132378, January 18, 2000

 FACTS:

Juan, an incumbent Punong Barangay, together with another Barangay Kagawad was charged with a criminal offense in violation of Omnibus Election Code and the R.A. 3019. During the election campaign, Rogelio Juan had willfully and unlawfully used a Radio Transceiver owned and controlled property of the Barangay. The other accused also willfully and unlawfully used a motor vehicle owned by the same Barangay.

A Motion for Removal from the Office was filed against them before the Regional Trial Court.

Rogelio together with the other accused have filed their comments on the ground that the RTC do not have jurisdiction over the case, but instead, it was the MTC having cognization thereof since the penalty does not exceed six years. They also argued that their case is not subject to R.A.3019.

However, upon trial and investigation, the trial court issued its decision granting the Motion for Removal from their office.

ISSUES:

1.         Whether or not RTC has jurisdiction over the case?

2.         Whether or not preventive suspension under R.A. 3091 be applied in this case?

 

HELD:

1.     Yes. It is evident from Section 32, BP 129, as amended by Section 2 of RA 7691, that the jurisdiction of first-level courts, the metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts and municipal circuit trial courts, does not cover those criminal cases which by specific provision of law are cognizable by regional trial courts.

Under Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code, it provides that the regional trial courts have exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal action or proceeding for violation of the Code, "except those relating to the offense of failure to register or failure to vote.

2.     Yes. Section 13 of R.A. 3019, as amended, provides: Any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid Information under this Act or under Title 7, Book II of the Revised Penal Code or for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property whether as a simple or as a complex offense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from office…

It must be emphasized that petitioners were incumbent public officers charged with the unauthorized and unlawful use of government property in their custody, in the pursuit of personal interests. The crime being imputed to them is akin to that committed by public officers as laid down in the Revised Penal Code. Certainly, petitioners' acts constitute fraud against the government; thus, the present case is covered by Section 13 of RA 3019.

 

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED.