Jurisdiction Over Police Officers: When Can a Civilian Court Try Them?

n

TLDR: This case clarifies that while courts-martial generally have jurisdiction over crimes committed by police officers, civilian courts can try them if they’ve been discharged from service before court-martial jurisdiction attaches. Understanding this distinction is crucial for determining the proper venue for legal proceedings involving law enforcement personnel.

nn

G.R. Nos. 120158-59, September 15, 1997

nn

Introduction

n

Imagine a police officer involved in a crime. Who gets to judge them – a military court or a civilian court? This question isn’t just academic; it determines the entire course of the legal process. This case, People of the Philippines vs. Eleseo Cheng, delves into the complex issue of jurisdiction over members of the Integrated National Police (INP), now the Philippine National Police (PNP), and when a civilian court can exercise authority over them.

nn

The case involves Eleseo Cheng, a former police officer, who was convicted of murder by a civilian court. Cheng argued that, as a police officer at the time of the alleged crime, he should have been tried by a court-martial. The Supreme Court, however, clarified the circumstances under which a civilian court can indeed have jurisdiction.

nn

Legal Context: Jurisdiction and the Courts-Martial

n

Jurisdiction, in simple terms, is the power of a court to hear and decide a case. For members of the police force, Presidential Decree No. 1850, as amended, outlines the rules regarding which court has jurisdiction over them when they are accused of a crime. Generally, courts-martial (military courts) have exclusive jurisdiction over uniformed members of the INP who commit crimes cognizable by civil courts.

nn

However, there are exceptions to this rule. Section 1 of P.D. 1850 states:

nn

Section 1. Court-Martial Jurisdiction over Integrated National Police and Members of the Armed Forces. ¾ Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding – (a) uniformed members of Integrated National Police who commit any crime or offense cognizable by the civil courts shall henceforth be exclusively tried by courts-martial pursuant to and in accordance with Commonwealth Act No. 408, as amended, otherwise known as the Articles of War… Provided, that… the case shall be disposed of or tried by the proper civil or judicial authorities when… court-martial jurisdiction over the person of the accused military or Integrated National Police personnel can no longer be exercised by virtue of their separation from the active service without jurisdiction having duly attached beforehand unless otherwise provided by law.

nn

This means that if a police officer is separated from service *before* court-martial jurisdiction has been established, a civilian court can step in. This is a critical distinction, as it protects the rights of both the accused and the public.

nn

Case Breakdown: The Cheng Case

n

The story began on February 21, 1989, when Esperanza Viterbo and Yehia Aburawash Mohammed were murdered. Eleseo Cheng, along with Salvador Sioco and Alejandro Malubay, were accused of the crime. Cheng argued that because he was a police officer at the time of the incident, a court-martial should have tried him. The trial court disagreed, and convicted Cheng and Sioco, acquitting Malubay.

nn

Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

nn

n
• February 21, 1989: The murders of Viterbo and Mohammed occur. Eleseo Cheng, a police officer, is implicated.

n

• June 6, 1989: Informations (formal charges) are filed against Cheng in a civilian court.

n

• May 18, 1989: Cheng was dismissed from the police service (disputed by Cheng).

n

• Trial: The civilian court proceeds with the trial, ultimately convicting Cheng.

n

nn

The Supreme Court focused on whether Cheng was still an active member of the INP when the charges were filed. The Court noted Cheng’s own admission during trial:

nn

Pat. Eleseo Cheng y Bello, 36 years old, married, as of now jobless but before I was with the Western Police District…
Q: Mr. Eleseo Cruz. I heard you said that you are now in jobless?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Since when?
A: May 20, 1989, sir.

nn

The Court also cited the prosecution’s evidence showing Cheng’s dismissal order was effective May 18, 1989, *before* the charges were filed. This was crucial. The Supreme Court stated:

nn

…this issue of jurisdiction may be disposed of by stating that while it is true that Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 1850, as amended, vests exclusive jurisdiction upon courts martial to try criminal offenses committed by members of the INP…accused-appellant’s case falls under the second exception…which confers upon civil courts jurisdiction over the person of the accused where he was discharged from active service without military jurisdiction having duly attached over him before his separation.

nn

Because Cheng was no longer a police officer when the civilian court began its legal process, the Supreme Court upheld the civilian court’s jurisdiction and affirmed Cheng’s conviction.

nn

Practical Implications: What Does This Mean?

n

This case has significant implications for understanding jurisdiction over law enforcement officers. It reinforces the principle that while courts-martial are generally the proper venue, civilian courts can step in when an officer is no longer in active service and court-martial jurisdiction hasn’t already taken hold. This ruling ensures that the legal system can address crimes committed by former officers without being unduly restricted by military jurisdiction.

nn

Key Lessons:

nn

n
• Timing is Crucial: The date of separation from service relative to the start of legal proceedings is critical in determining jurisdiction.

n

• Judicial Admissions Matter: Statements made by the accused during trial can be used against them to establish facts, including their employment status.

n

• Burden of Proof: The party claiming lack of jurisdiction bears the burden of proving it.

n

nn

Frequently Asked Questions

nn

Q: What happens if a police officer commits a crime while on duty?

n

A: Generally, a court-martial would have jurisdiction, unless one of the exceptions in P.D. 1850 applies.

nn

Q: Can a civilian court ever try a police officer for a crime committed while they were still on the force?

n

A: Yes, if the officer is separated from service before court-martial jurisdiction attaches, or if the President orders the case to be tried by a civil court.

nn

Q: What does it mean for court-martial jurisdiction to