[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
718 views1 page

Case No. 1 - PANFILO M. LACSON vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

Eleven alleged members of a crime syndicate were killed by police. An investigation found it was an execution, not a shootout. Twenty-six police officers, including petitioner, were charged with multiple murder. Petitioner argued the case fell under regional court jurisdiction. However, a new law expanded the jurisdiction of another court to try these cases. The only issue is whether this law could apply retroactively. The court ruled the law was not ex post facto or penal in nature, but procedural. It expanded the courts' jurisdiction, not criminal penalties, so applying it retroactively was constitutional.

Uploaded by

Carmel Grace Kiwas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
718 views1 page

Case No. 1 - PANFILO M. LACSON vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

Eleven alleged members of a crime syndicate were killed by police. An investigation found it was an execution, not a shootout. Twenty-six police officers, including petitioner, were charged with multiple murder. Petitioner argued the case fell under regional court jurisdiction. However, a new law expanded the jurisdiction of another court to try these cases. The only issue is whether this law could apply retroactively. The court ruled the law was not ex post facto or penal in nature, but procedural. It expanded the courts' jurisdiction, not criminal penalties, so applying it retroactively was constitutional.

Uploaded by

Carmel Grace Kiwas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. NO. 128096.

January 20, 1999


PANFILO M. LACSON, petitioner,
vs.
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, et. al., respondents.
Facts:
Eleven persons believed to be members of the Kuratong Baleleng
gang, an organized crime syndicate involved in bank robberies, were slain
by elements of the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Group
(ABRITG).
Acting on a media expose of SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes, a member of
the Criminal Investigation Command, that what actually transpired was a
summary execution and not a shoot-out between the Kuratong Baleleng
gang members and the ABRITG, Ombudsman Aniano Desierto formed a
panel of investigators to investigate the said incident. Said panel found the
incident as a legitimate police operation but later reviewed and
recommended the indictment for multiple murder against twenty-six
respondents including herein petitioner, charged as principal, and herein
petitioner-intervenors, charged as accessories.
Petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, asserting
that under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7975 the cases fall within the
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. But, on March 1, 1996, new bills
were introduced in Congress, expanding the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. These bills were consolidated and later approved into law
as R.A. No. 8249.
Issues:
Whether or not said statute may be considered as an ex-post facto statute.
Ruling:
No. There is nothing ex post facto in R.A. 8249. Ex post facto law,
generally, provides retroactive effect of penal laws. R.A. 8249 is not a penal
law. It is a substantive law on jurisdiction which is not penal in character.
Penal laws are those acts of the Legislature which prohibit certain acts and
establish penalties for their violations or those that define crimes and
provide for their punishment. R.A. 7975, as regards the Sandiganbayan’s
jurisdiction, its mode of appeal and other procedural matters, has been
declared by the Court as not a penal law, but clearly a procedural statute,
one which prescribes rules of procedure by which courts applying laws of
all kinds can properly administer justice. Not being a penal law, the
retroactive application of R.A. 8249 cannot be challenged as
unconstitutional.

You might also like