This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2005-04-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Aguinaldo v. Domagas,[9] promulgated on 26 September 1991, modified Deloso v. Domingo. Aguinaldo v. Domagas clarified that offenses specified in Section 4(a)(2) of PD 1606, as amended by PD 1861, must be committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office and the information must allege this fact. The succeeding cases of Sanchez v. Demetriou[10] and Natividad v. Felix,[11] reiterated the Aguinaldo v. Domagas ruling. | |||||
|
2004-04-13 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In Natividad vs. Felix,[10] a 1994 case, where the petitioner municipal mayor contended that it is the Ombudsman and not the provincial fiscal who has the authority to conduct a preliminary investigation over his case for alleged Murder, the Court held:The Deloso case has already been re-examined in two cases, namely Aguinaldo vs. Domagas and Sanchez vs. Demetriou. However, by way of amplification, we feel the need for tracing the history of the legislation relative to the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan since the Ombudsman's primary jurisdiction is dependent on the cases cognizable by the former. | |||||
|
2003-09-16 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In a catena of cases decided under the aegis of P.D. No. 1606, such as Aguinaldo vs. Domagas,[58] Sanchez vs. Demetriou,[59] Natividad vs. Felix,[60] and Republic vs. Asuncion,[61] we ruled that two requirements must concur under Sec. 4 (a) (2) for an offense to fall under the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, namely: (1) the offense committed by the public officer must be in relation to his office; and (2) the penalty prescribed must be higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years, or a fine of P6,000.00. Obviously, the first requirement is the present cause of discord between petitioner and the People. | |||||