The Ombudsman, after conducting the requisite preliminary investigation, found probable cause to charge Gov. Matigas in conspiracy with Carpintero, a private individual, for violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended). Before the information could be filed with the Sandiganbayan, Gov. Matigas was killed in an ambush. This, notwithstanding, an information was filed against Gov. Matigas and Carpintero.
At the Sandiganbayan, Carpintero through counsel, filed a Motion to Quash the Information, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, arguing that with the death of Gov. Matigas, there is no public officer charged in the information. Is the motion to quash legally tenable? (4%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
No, the Motion to Quash is not legally tenable. Under settled jurisprudence, the death of a public officer prior to the filing of the information extinguishes only his personal criminal liability, but it neither extinguishes the crime nor removes
Unlock the full Remedial Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Does the death of a public officer prior to filing an Information divest the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over a private co-conspirator?
The death of a public officer does not divest the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over a private co-conspirator charged under RA 3019.
What is the legal effect of the death of a public officer prior to the filing of an Information for violation of RA 3019?
The death of an accused extinguishes only his personal criminal liability under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code.
Under People v. Go, why does a private individual remain liable under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 despite the death of the public officer?
Conspiracy renders co-conspirators liable and the death of one does not extinguish the criminal liability of the survivor.
Which court has exclusive original jurisdiction over a private individual charged in conspiracy with a governor for violating RA 3019?
Choices available with full access.
What is the proper action of the Sandiganbayan on a Motion to Quash filed by a private co-conspirator grounded on the death of the public officer?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction
Under Republic Act No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan possesses exclusive original jurisdiction over criminal cases involving public officers enumerated under the law, as well as private individuals charged as co-conspirators. The jurisdictional character of the court is determined by the allegations in the Information at the time of filing. When a private individual is indicted for conspiring with a public officer in violating Republic Act No. 3019, the Sandiganbayan acquires jurisdiction over the offense and the private defendant, which jurisdiction continues until the final termination of the case.
2. Public Officer Death
Under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code and established jurisprudence in People v. Go, the death of an accused prior to the filing of the Information extinguishes only his personal criminal liability. The death of a public officer co-conspirator neither extinguishes the underlying crime nor obliterates the conspiracy established during preliminary investigation. A private individual who conspired with the deceased public officer remains criminally liable under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and can be prosecuted independently before the Sandiganbayan.
3. Motion to Quash
A motion to quash an Information under Rule 117 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure must be anchored on specific statutory grounds, such as lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. Where the Information properly alleges that a private individual acted in conspiracy with a public officer to violate anti-graft laws, the demise of the public officer before judicial filing does not divest the Sandiganbayan of subject matter jurisdiction. Consequently, a motion to quash filed by the surviving private co-conspirator on jurisdictional grounds must be denied.