Facts

• On June 28, 1993 Mary Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez, students of UPLB, were abducted by armed men in Los Baños, Laguna and taken to the farm of Calauan Mayor Antonio L. Sanchez in Barangay Curba, Calauan.
• That night Sarmenta was raped in succession by the seven accused — Sanchez, George Medialdea, Zoilo Ama, Baldwin Brion, Luis Corcolon, Rogelio Corcolon and Pepito Kawit — while Gomez was tortured and shot dead. Sarmenta was then shot in the head inside a white passenger van. Seven rapes, one death — that arithmetic is the case.
• On June 29, 1993 Sarmenta's body was found in the van and Gomez's in a grassy area, with multiple gunshot wounds.
• On July 28, 1993 the PACC asked the DOJ to file charges.
• On August 12–13, 1993 Sanchez received a PNP "invitation" and was taken to Camp Vicente Lim, where state witnesses Aurelio Centeno and SPO III Vivencio Malabanan identified him; he was placed on "arrest status" and brought to the DOJ for inquest. Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas issued a warrant in separate R.A. No. 6713 cases and he was detained at Camp Crame.
• On August 16, 1993 the DOJ Panel filed seven separate Informations in the RTC of Calamba, and Judge Eustaquio P. Sto. Domingo issued warrants.
• On September 10, 1993 the prosecution filed an Amended Information adding the killing of Gomez as a generic aggravating circumstance, and Sanchez moved to quash on lack of jurisdiction, illegal arrest, denial of due process in the preliminary investigation, and duplicity of homicides — arguing the indictments were absurd, since "the two victims could not have died seven times."
• On September 13, 1993 Judge Harriet O. Demetriou denied the motion, and on November 9, 1993 the En Banc dismissed the certiorari petition.

Issue

Ruling

"WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The respondent judge is DIRECTED to continue with the trial of Criminal Cases Nos. 101141, 101142, 101143, 101144, 101145, 101146 and 101147 and to decide them with deliberate dispatch.

SO ORDERED."

Ratio

• The petitioner's premise was wrong, not his arithmetic. He was not charged with seven independent homicides; the homicide is a constituent element of each rape with homicide.
• The Court adopted the Solicitor General's formulation: "Thus, where there are two or more offenders who commit rape, the homicide committed on the occasion or by reason of each rape, must be deemed as a constituent of the special complex crime of rape with homicide. Therefore, there will be as many crimes of rape with homicide as there are rapes committed. In effect, the presence of homicide qualifies the crime of rape, thereby raising its penalty to the highest degree. Thus, homicide committed on the occasion or by reason of rape is treated under Article 335§ of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, as a constituent or qualifying element of rape with homicide, not as a separate crime of homicide."
• Each accused being separately charged with his own rape and with participating in the slaying, the seven Informations are "legally correct, precise, valid, and fully sufficient" under Section 6, Rule 110§ to inform them of the accusation.
• On Sandiganbayan jurisdiction the test is connection, not status. Applying Montilla v. Hilario and People v. Montejo, the offence must be one that cannot exist without the office, or be intimately connected to it: "The crime of rape with homicide imputed to the petitioner was not connected with the discharge of his functions as municipal mayor nor that there is an 'intimate connection' between the offense and his office. It follows that the said crime, being an ordinary offense, is triable by the regular courts and not the Sandiganbayan."
• On the arrest the Court conceded the illegality and then confined its consequences. The "invitation" to Camp Vicente Lim "assumed a coercive character," making it a warrantless arrest under Section 2, Article III; but "the filing of charges, and the issuance of the corresponding warrant of arrest, against a person invalidly detained will cure the defect of that detention or at least deny him the right to be released because of such defect … the Regional Trial Court lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner by virtue of the warrant of arrest subsequently issued."
• And the Ombudsman's power is shared, not exclusive — concurrent with other investigative agencies including the DOJ Panel under P.D. No. 1275 and R.A. No. 6770.

Doctrine

• Where multiple offenders commit separate successive rapes on the same victim who is then killed on the occasion or by reason of the rapes, each rape by each offender is a distinct crime of rape with homicide, the homicide being a constituent element of each — hence as many crimes as rapes, regardless of the single death.
• Illegal arrest is cured by a subsequent valid warrant: the filing of a valid Information and issuance of a warrant vests jurisdiction over the person, or at least defeats any right to release on account of the earlier defect.
• The "in relation to office" test: Sandiganbayan jurisdiction requires factual allegations showing the office is a constituent element of the crime or intimately connected to it; ordinary crimes go to the regular courts.

• Objections to sufficiency are pre-plea business — they must be raised by a motion to quash under Rule 117 before arraignment, or formal defects are waived under Section 9, Rule 117.
• And the one-offence rule of Section 13, Rule 110§ was satisfied here, not strained — seven Informations for seven offences is precisely what it requires.
• And the concurrency rule is a general one, yielding where a statute vests exclusive competence elsewhere.
• Note what carried the day here: the Informations were attacked as absurd on their face, and the answer was substantive — the Court had to explain what Article 335§ makes of a homicide before it could say the pleading was sound. Compare People v. Tabaco, where separate Informations forbade complexing, and People v. Madali, where they were the wrong vehicle for a complex crime — here separate Informations were exactly right, because there genuinely were seven offences.
• Also note the page's citation defects: the coverage sheet spells the judge "Demetrious" (the Decision says Demetriou), and the same decision is digested in Week 2 for its office-relation holding.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Facts

• June 28, 1993: Mary Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez, both students of the University of the Philippines, Los Baños (UPLB), are abducted by armed men in Los Baños, Laguna, and transported to the farm of Calauan Mayor Antonio L. Sanchez in Barangay Curba, Calauan, Laguna. On the same night, Sarmenta is repeatedly raped in succession by the seven accused (including Mayor Sanchez, George Medialdea, Zoilo Ama, Baldwin Brion, Luis Corcolon, Rogelio Corcolon, and Pepito Kawit), while Gomez is tortured and murdered by gunshots. Sarmenta is subsequently shot in the head and killed inside a white passenger van.
• June 29, 1993: The lifeless body of Mary Eileen Sarmenta is discovered inside a white passenger van in Calauan, Laguna, showing signs of severe physical abuse and rape. The body of Allan Gomez is found in a grassy area in another village in Calauan, Laguna, with multiple gunshot wounds.
• July 28, 1993: The Presidential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC) requests the Department of Justice (DOJ) to file appropriate criminal charges against Mayor Sanchez and several others in connection with the rape-slay of Sarmenta and the killing of Gomez.
• August 9, 1993: The Panel of State Prosecutors of the DOJ conducts a preliminary investigation. Petitioner Sanchez is absent but is represented by his counsel, Atty. Marciano Brion, Jr.
• August 12, 1993: Petitioner Sanchez receives an "invitation" from the Philippine National Police (PNP) and is taken to Camp Vicente Lim for questioning.
• August 13, 1993: During a confrontation at Camp Vicente Lim, state witnesses Aurelio Centeno and SPO III Vivencio Malabanan positively identify the petitioner and execute extrajudicial confessions/statements implicating him. Sanchez is placed on "arrest status" and transported to the DOJ in Manila, where an inquest is conducted with Atty. Salvador Panelo acting as his counsel.
• August 13, 1993: Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 27, issues a warrant of arrest against the petitioner in connection with separate administrative criminal cases (violations of R.A. No. 6713), and the petitioner is detained at the CIS Detention Center in Camp Crame.
• August 16, 1993: The DOJ Panel of State Prosecutors files seven separate criminal Informations in the RTC of Calamba, Laguna, charging the petitioner and his six co-accused with the rape and killing of Sarmenta.
• August 16, 1993: Judge Eustaquio P. Sto. Domingo of the RTC of Calamba, Laguna, issues a warrant of arrest against the petitioner and his co-accused in connection with the rape-slay cases.
• September 10, 1993: The prosecution files an Amended Information before the RTC of Calamba, Laguna, to include the killing of Allan Gomez as a generic aggravating circumstance.
• September 10, 1993: On the same date, petitioner Sanchez files a Motion to Quash the seven separate Informations on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, illegal arrest, denial of due process during the preliminary investigation, and duplicity of homicides.
• September 13, 1993: Following oral arguments, respondent Judge Harriet O. Demetriou (Presiding Judge, RTC, NCR, Branch 70, Pasig) issues an Order denying petitioner's Motion to Quash.
• Subsequent Date (Exact Date NOT IN RECORD): Petitioner Sanchez files the instant Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court of the Philippines, docketed as G.R. Nos. 111771-77.
• November 9, 1993: The Supreme Court En Banc promulgates its Decision dismissing the petition for lack of merit and affirming the respondent judge's denial of the Motion to Quash.

Arguments of the Parties

• Insufficiency and Absurdity of the Informations (Rule 110, Section 6§): The petitioner argued that the seven separate Informations filed against him were absurd, logically impossible, and legally defective because they charged him with seven separate homicides arising from the deaths of only two victims (Sarmenta and Gomez). Since a person can only die once, charging seven separate homicides for two deaths constituted a fatal defect in the substance of the indictments.
• Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan: The petitioner contended that as the incumbent Municipal Mayor of Calauan, Laguna, any criminal charge against him must be tried exclusively by the Sandiganbayan under Presidential Decree No. 1606, because the offenses were allegedly committed "in relation to his office."
• Lack of Jurisdiction over his Person due to Illegal Warrantless Arrest: He asserted that his warrantless arrest was illegal because it was effected through a coercive PNP "invitation" to Camp Vicente Lim without a valid warrant, thereby depriving the trial court of jurisdiction over his person.
• Exclusive Preliminary Investigation Competence of the Ombudsman: He argued that only the Ombudsman had the legal authority to investigate public officers, rendering the DOJ's investigation null and void.
• Denial of Due Process: He claimed that his right to due process was violated because the DOJ Panel did not grant him sufficient time to present his evidence during the preliminary investigation.
• Discriminatory Prosecution: He argued that the Informations were discriminatory because they did not include other suspects, namely Teofilo Alqueza and Edgardo Lavadia.

• Validity and Sufficiency of the Informations: The Solicitor General refuted the petitioner's argument by explaining that under Article 335§ of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, when homicide is committed on the occasion or by reason of a rape, the homicide is a constituent element of the single, special complex crime of rape with homicide. Where multiple offenders commit separate, successive acts of rape on a victim, the homicide committed on the occasion of each rape is a constituent element of each individual complex crime. Therefore, there are as many crimes of rape with homicide as there are rapes committed, even if there is only one death. The seven separate Informations charging each of the seven accused with the complex crime of rape with homicide were therefore legally correct and sufficient.
• RTC's Proper Jurisdiction: The respondents argued that rape and homicide are ordinary crimes that are not connected with the discharge of the petitioner's official functions as municipal mayor. There is no "close intimacy" or "intimate connection" between the office of mayor and the rape-slay of a student. Thus, the Regional Trial Court, and not the Sandiganbayan, has jurisdiction.
• Curing of Arrest Defect via Valid Warrant: They conceded that the original warrantless detention might have been irregular but argued that the subsequent filing of the Informations and the issuance of valid warrants of arrest by the Regional Trial Court cured any procedural defect, vesting valid jurisdiction over the person of the accused in the court.
• Concurrent Authority of DOJ and Ombudsman: They argued that the Ombudsman's authority to investigate public officers is shared and concurrent with the DOJ under the Constitution, R.A. No. 6770, and P.D. No. 1275.
• Full Observance of Due Process: They contended that the petitioner was given ample opportunity and sufficient time to present his counter-affidavits but chose to file technical objections instead.
• Prosecutorial Discretion: The prosecution has the exclusive discretion to determine who should be prosecuted based on the sufficiency of the evidence.

• Factual Occurrence of Only Two Mortalities: Both parties stipulated that only two individuals (Mary Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez) actually died during the course of the incident.

Issue

1. Whether the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over a Municipal Mayor charged with the crimes of rape and homicide, or whether exclusive jurisdiction belongs to the Sandiganbayan under Presidential Decree No. 1606.
2. Whether a prior illegal warrantless arrest (or a coercive PNP "invitation" to a military camp) divests the trial court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused if a valid warrant of arrest is subsequently issued by the Regional Trial Court after the filing of the Information.
3. Whether the Office of the Ombudsman has exclusive competence to conduct preliminary investigations of criminal complaints filed against public officers, to the exclusion of the Panel of State Prosecutors of the Department of Justice.
4. Whether the petitioner was denied his constitutional right to due process during the preliminary investigation conducted by the Panel of State Prosecutors.

Ruling

• MAIN ISSUE: NO (The Informations are sufficient, valid, and NOT defective). The Supreme Court held that the Informations were legally correct and sufficient. Under Article 335§ of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, when homicide is committed on the occasion or by reason of a rape, it is treated as a constituent element or a qualifying circumstance of the single, special complex crime of rape with homicide. Each successive rape committed by each of the seven accused constitutes a separate and distinct crime of rape with homicide. The subsequent homicide is deemed a constituent element of each individual rape, meaning there are as many crimes of rape with homicide as there are rapes committed, regardless of the fact that there was only one death.
• SECONDARY ISSUE 1 (Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction): NO (RTC has jurisdiction). The Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction is limited to offenses committed by public officers "in relation to their office." The crime of rape with homicide is an ordinary offense and is not connected with the discharge of the petitioner's functions as municipal mayor. There is no close intimacy or "intimate connection" between the office of a mayor and the rape-slay of a student. Thus, the regular courts (RTC) have jurisdiction.
• SECONDARY ISSUE 2 (Illegal Arrest): NO (Jurisdiction was lawfully acquired). While the original warrantless arrest of the petitioner was illegal, the subsequent filing of the Informations and the issuance of a valid warrant of arrest by the Regional Trial Court cured the defect of the illegal warrantless detention and lawfully vested jurisdiction over the person of the accused in the trial court.
• SECONDARY ISSUE 3 (Ombudsman Competence): NO (DOJ has concurrent authority). The authority of the Ombudsman to investigate public officers is shared and concurrent with the DOJ under the Constitution, R.A. No. 6770, and P.D. No. 1275.
• SECONDARY ISSUE 4 (Due Process): NO (Due process was observed). The petitioner was given ample opportunity and sufficient time to present his counter-affidavits, but his counsel chose to raise technical objections instead.

"WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The respondent judge is DIRECTED to continue with the trial of Criminal Cases Nos. 101141, 101142, 101143, 101144, 101145, 101146 and 101147 and to decide them with deliberate dispatch.

SO ORDERED."

Ratio

1. The Substantive Structure of Rape with Homicide under Rule 110§, Section 6: The petitioner’s primary argument against the sufficiency of the Informations—that "the two victims could not have died seven times"—is based on the false premise that he is being charged with seven separate, independent homicides. The Court rejected this reasoning, explaining that under Article 335§ of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, when homicide is committed on the occasion or by reason of a rape, the homicide is a constituent element of the single, special complex crime of rape with homicide. The Court quoted with approval the Solicitor General's explanation:

   "Thus, where there are two or more offenders who commit rape, the homicide committed on the occasion or by reason of each rape, must be deemed as a constituent of the special complex crime of rape with homicide. Therefore, there will be as many crimes of rape with homicide as there are rapes committed. In effect, the presence of homicide qualifies the crime of rape, thereby raising its penalty to the highest degree. Thus, homicide committed on the occasion or by reason of rape is treated under Article 335§ of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, as a constituent or qualifying element of rape with homicide, not as a separate crime of homicide."

   The Court held that because each of the seven accused is being charged separately for actually raping Sarmenta and later participating in her slaying, each of the seven successive rapes is complexed by the subsequent slaying of Sarmenta. Consequently, the seven separate Informations filed against the seven accused are legally correct, precise, valid, and fully sufficient under Section 6, Rule 110§ of the Rules of Court to inform them of the nature and cause of the charges.
2. No "Intimate Connection" Between Public Office and Rape with Homicide: The Court analyzed the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan under Presidential Decree No. 1606. Applying the principles in Montilla v. Hilario and People v. Montejo, the Court explained that for an offense to be committed "in relation to office," the relation between the crime and the office must be such that the offense cannot exist without the office, or that there must be an "intimate connection" between the office and the crime. The Court held:

   "The crime of rape with homicide imputed to the petitioner was not connected with the discharge of his functions as municipal mayor nor that there is an 'intimate connection' between the offense and his office. It follows that the said crime, being an ordinary offense, is triable by the regular courts and not the Sandiganbayan."

   The office of the mayor is not a constituent element of the crime of rape with homicide, nor did the petitioner's public office facilitate or intimately relate to the rape-slay of the student. Thus, jurisdiction belongs squarely to the Regional Trial Court.
3. Warrantless Arrest Defect Cured by Valid Warrant: The Court examined the petitioner’s warrantless arrest and agreed that it was illegal. The PNP "invitation" to Camp Vicente Lim assumed a coercive character, converting it into a de facto arrest under custodial investigation without a warrant, in violation of Section 2, Article III of the Constitution. However, the Court laid down the critical procedural rule that:

   "the filing of charges, and the issuance of the corresponding warrant of arrest, against a person invalidly detained will cure the defect of that detention or at least deny him the right to be released because of such defect. The original warrantless arrest of the petitioner was doubtless illegal. Nevertheless, the Regional Trial Court lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner by virtue of the warrant of arrest subsequently issued in connection with the rape-slay cases."

   Once the trial court issues a valid warrant of arrest after the filing of the Information, any prior irregularity in the warrantless arrest is superseded and cured, and the court successfully acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
4. Concurrent Investigation Authority of the DOJ: The Court dismissed the petitioner's argument that only the Ombudsman had the authority to conduct preliminary investigations of public officers. It ruled that under the Constitution and the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (R.A. No. 6770), the Ombudsman’s authority to investigate is not exclusive but is shared and concurrent with other investigative agencies of the Government, including the Panel of State Prosecutors of the DOJ under Presidential Decree No. 1275.

Doctrine

• The Multiplicity of Rape with Homicide Rule: In the special complex crime of rape with homicide under Article 335§ of the Revised Penal Code, if multiple offenders commit separate, successive acts of rape on the same victim, and the victim is subsequently killed on the occasion or by reason of the rapes, each individual rape committed by each offender constitutes a separate and distinct crime of rape with homicide. The subsequent homicide is a constituent element of each rape, resulting in as many crimes of rape with homicide as there are rapes committed.
• The Curing of Illegal Arrest Rule: The filing of a valid Information and the subsequent issuance of a warrant of arrest by a court of competent jurisdiction cures any defect of a prior illegal warrantless detention, or at least denies the accused the right to be released because of such defect, successfully vesting the court with jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
• The "In Relation to Office" Jurisdictional Test: For a crime committed by a public officer to fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan under P.D. 1606, the Information must contain specific factual allegations showing that the office is a constituent element of the crime, or that there is an "intimate connection" between the office and the offense. Ordinary crimes (such as rape and homicide) that do not arise from the performance of official duties are triable exclusively by the regular Regional Trial Courts.

• Pre-Arraignment Objection Deadline: Objections to the sufficiency of the Information must be raised by the accused in a Motion to Quash under Rule 117 before entering his plea during arraignment. If the accused fails to file a timely motion to quash, he is deemed to have waived any formal defects under Section 9, Rule 117.
• Shared vs. Exclusive Jurisdiction: The rule on concurrent preliminary investigation authority does not apply to cases falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of specific agencies where the law expressly provides otherwise, but the general rule remains that the Ombudsman’s authority over public officers is concurrent with the DOJ.

Separate Opinions