Practice question
A qualifying official’s offense was committed in 2010, and the case was filed after RA 10660 took effect. The accused relies solely on the new no-damage-or-bribery proviso to demand transfer, claiming the filing date makes the amended jurisdiction rule retroactive. Which is correct?
- The filing date alone necessarily applies the new proviso to the 2010 offense
- Section 5 makes the jurisdiction amendment apply to offenses committed after effectivity; the 2010 case requires the governing earlier jurisdictional law
- Every pending case was automatically dismissed in 2015
- A post-2015 hearing always converts the commission date to 2024
- Jurisdiction is determined solely by the date of retirement
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2015/ra_10660_2015.html — sections 2 and 5, current PD 1606 section 4 jurisdiction, information-based RTC exceptions, official classifications, private co-accused and prospective jurisdiction amendment.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/sep2020/gr_251177_2020.html — Non v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 251177, September 8, 2020, no alleged government damage or bribery and RTC jurisdiction under RA 10660.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/oct2022/gr_237815_2022.html — Fua, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 237815, October 12, 2022, May 5, 2015 effectivity and prospective application of jurisdiction changes.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.