Practice question
An information charges a qualifying high-ranking public officer with a 2024 section 3(e) offense based on unwarranted private benefits. It alleges neither government damage nor bribery. The prosecutor claims high rank alone requires Sandiganbayan trial. Which is correct?
- The claim is always correct whenever section 3(e) is named
- The RTC proviso applies because the information alleges neither government damage nor bribery
- The case becomes an original CA action
- Every absence of a damage amount means no section 3(e) offense can exist
- The court must disregard the information and select jurisdiction by the accused’s wealth
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.