JURISDICTION

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

De Lima claims that the offense against her is exclusively cognizable by Sandiganbayan
considering that the offense had been committed in relation to her forn1er position as
Secretary of Justice. Hence, the Jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation over
the complaint against her belongs to Office of the Ombudsman. As the DOJ Panel of
Prosecutors had no authority to conduct the preliminary investigation, the
Information filed against her is void.

 She is mistaken. The authority of the DOJ is lodged in Chapter I, Title 3, Book 4 of
the 1987 Administrative Code:

-Where the DOJ has the power to investigate the commission of crime, prosecute
offenders and administer the probation and correction system

 When the person charged with an offense is a public officer such as delima, the DOJ
and THE OMB has concurrent jurisdiction in the conduct of the investigation
including the preliminary investigation.
 Such concurrent jurisdiction was stressed in the case of Honasan II v Panel of
Prosecutors

-the Constitution, Sec.15 of the Ombudsman act of 1989, Sec. 4 of the

Sandiganbayan law, as amended, do not give to the ombudsman the exclusive
jurisdiction to conduct investigation on offenses committed by the

-in other words the DOJ is not precluded from conducting any investigation on cases
against public officers involving violation of penals laws but if the case falls under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the sandiganbayan then the ombudsman may take over the
case at any stage
 Sec. 90 of RA 9165, also states that the DOJ shall appoint special prosecutors to
exclusively handle the case involving violations of this act
 De lima is also barred by estoppel from claiming otherwise for she herself executed
the MOA bet. DOJ and the OMB with regards to the concurrent jurisdiction.
 RTC HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED

 Jurisdiction is defined as the power to try, hear, and decide a case. Such jurisdiction
of a court is a subject matter vested by law
 RA. 296 or the Judiciary act of 1948 confers the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFI to
crimes punishable by imprisonment of more than six months or a fine not less than
200
 RA. 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, the felonies punishable under this
act is cognizable by Circuit Criminal Courts
 However, BP Blg. 129, abolished the Circuit Criminal Court. Pursuant to such
abolishment, The exclusive jurisdiction to try cases for violation of RA. 6425 was
transferred to RTC
 Now, in the enactment of the New Dangerous Drugs law, RA 9165, Section 90 of
such law confers exclusive jurisdiction to try any violation of the acts mentioned in
the law.

Under the foregoing laws and issuances, it is indubitable that the RTC really has the
exclusive jurisdiction to hear drug cases.

To bolster such claim, even as early as August 2000, the SC issued AM 00-8-01-SC
designating branches of RTC as Special Courts for Drug Cases

Also in October 2005 the SC issued AM 05-9-03-SC to clarify whether drug courts
should be included in the regular raffle

This conferring of jurisdiction of the RTC is consistent with the legislative intent for law
itself RA 9165 made mention for the RTC in sever of its section. The law did not mention
of any other court or a proper court for that matter. This could only be understood that
the law makers intended that the jurisdiction to try drug cases exclusively be granted on
the Supreme Court

 The fact that De lima committed the crime when she was still the Secretary of the
DOJ is of no moment. In addition, an allegation in the information that the crime was
committed in relation to office does not automatically confer exclusive jurisdiction to
the Sandigganbayan.

 As held in People vs Magallanes, for the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Sandigganbayan to take effect 2 requisites must concur
1) That the offense committed is punishable by a penalty higher than prision
correctional or six years
2) that the crime is committed in relation to their office
-that the crime connot exist w/o the office
-that the office is a constituent element of the crime
 In the case of De lima, her abuse of position is not an indispensable element under
Sec.26(b) in relation to Sec 3(jj) of RA 9165. Moreover such crime may even exist
without her abusing her office. Such position of delima can only be considered as an
aggravating offense.

 Even assuming arguendo that the crime was committed in relation to he office, not
all crime falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the sandigganbayan may be heard
in such court.

 In the case of People of the Philippines vs Benipayo, the court held that even if the
case falls under the enumeration in the Sandigganbayan law, where a statute has
conferred an original jurisdiction to a court such original jurisdiction must be upheld