You are on page 1of 10

UY vs SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:
> Motion for Further Clarification filed by Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto of the
Court's ruling in its decision that the prosecutory power of the Ombudsman extends
only to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and that the Ombudsman has no
authority to prosecute cases falling within the jurisdiction of regular courts.
ISSUE:

(1) of RA 6770 is not an exclusive authority but rather a shared or concurrent
authority in respect of the offense charged. Thus, Administrative Order No. 8 issued
by the Office of the Ombudsman provides:
The prosecution of case cognizable by the Sandiganbayan shall be under the direct
exclusive control and supervision of the Office of the Ombudsman. In cases
cognizable by regular Courts, the control and supervision by the Office of the
Ombudsman is only in Ombudsman cases in the sense defined (therein). The law
recognizes a concurrence of jurisdiction between the Office of the Ombudsman and
other investigative agencies of government in the prosecution of cases cognizable
by regular courts.

Whether or not the "primary jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman over
cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan" is not a delimitation of its jurisdiction solely
to Sandiganbayan cases?

FABIAN vs DESIERTO

RULING:

> Teresita G. Fabian was the major stockholder and president of PROMAT
Construction Development Corporation (PROMAT) which was engaged in the
construction business. Private respondents Nestor V. Agustin was the incumbent
District Engineering District (FMED) when he allegedly committed the offenses for
which he was administratively charged in the Office in the office of the Ombudsman.
> Promat participated in the bidding for government construction project including
those under the FMED, and private respondent, reportedly taking advantage of his
official position, inveigled petitioner into an amorous relationship. Their affair lasted
for some time, in the course of which private respondents gifted PROMAT with public
works contracts.
> Later, misunderstanding and unpleasant incidents developed between the parties
and when petitioner tried to terminate their relationship, private respondent refused
and resisted her attempts to do so to the extent of employing acts of harassment,
intimidation and threats. She eventually filed the aforementioned administrative case
against him.
> The said complaint sought the dismissal of private respondent.
> Graft Investigator issued a resolution finding private respondents guilty of grave
misconduct and ordering his dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all benefits
under the law.
> Ombudsman, in an Order approved the aforesaid resolution.

YES. We held that the Ombudsman is clothed with authority to conduct
preliminary investigation and to prosecute all criminal cases involving public officers
and employees, not only those within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, but
those within the jurisdiction of the regular courts as well.
The authority of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute offenses committed
by public officers and employees is founded in Section 15 and Section 11 of RA
6770. Section 15 vests the Ombudsman with the power to investigate and prosecute
any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such
act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.
The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is
plenary and unqualified. It pertains to any act or omission of any public officer or
employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or
inefficient. The law does not make a distinction between cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan and those cognizable by regular courts. It has been held that the
clause any illegal act or omission of any public official is broad enough to embrace
any crime committed by a public officer or employee.

FACTS:

ISSUE:
Finally, it must be clarified that the authority of the Ombudsman to prosecute cases
involving public officers and employees before the regular courts does not conflict
with the power of the regular prosecutors under the Department of Justice to control
and direct the prosecution of all criminal actions under Rule 110 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Rules of Court must be read in conjunction with
RA 6770 which charged the Ombudsman with the duty to investigate and prosecute
all illegal acts and omissions of public officers and employees. The Court held in the
case of Sanchez vs. Demetriou that the power of the Ombudsman under Section 15

Whether or not the appeal from the Ombudsman will go to CA or SC?
RULING:
It will be the CA.
It overlooks the fact that by jurisprudential developments over the years, this Court
has allowed appeals by certiorari under Rule 45 in a substantial number of cases

the investigator was constrained to resolve the case on the basis solely of the evidence furnished by the private respondent. When confronted by the private respondent. the test is whether the rule really regulates procedure. hence he can have none in rules of procedure which relate to the remedy. in the case at bar. provides that orders. [31] If the rule takes away a vested right.A.and instances even if questions of fact are directly involved and have to be resolved by the appellate court. when the case was called for preliminary conference. he learned that his missing checks were taken by the petitioner. > The petitioner was declared administratively liable and ordered dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and disqualification from government service. That right has been preserved. it may be classified as a substantive matter. when its invalidity was declared. an employee of the Philippine Postal Corporation in Bacolod City. the indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction would unnecessarily burden the Court. (R. it was dishonored by the drawee bank for having been drawn against insufficient funds. enlarges. [32] In the situation under consideration. relates to procedure only. for the practice and procedure of the lower courts. when the private complainant presented the check for payment. therefore. the petitioner issued to the former his personal check in payment of the checks. > Private respondent is a retired employee receiving a monthly pension from the Social Security System. MACALALAG vs OMBUDSMAN FACTS: > Private respondent Pablo Aloro lodged with the Office of the Ombudsman for Visayas a complaint for dishonesty against the petitioner Jessie Macalalag. Only the procedure by which the appeal is to be made or decided has been changed. Again. Article VI of the Constitution against a law which increases the Appellate jurisdiction of this Court. Section 30. ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over actions for annulment of decisions or orders of the Ombudsman in administrative cases? RULING: YES. Desierto. The rationale for this is that litigant has a vested right in a particular remedy. > Petitioner filed an action for annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals on the ground that "the gross ignorance.) 6770. of pending cases involving a review of decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary actions to the Court of Appeals which shall now be vested with exclusive appellate jurisdiction thereover. Otherwise. However.[33] This is so because it is not the right to appeal of an aggrieved party which is affected by the law. also known as The Ombudsman Act of 1989. a transfer by the Supreme Court. Instead. No countervailing argument has been cogently presented to justify such disregard of the constitutional prohibition which was intended to give this Court a measure of control over cases placed under its appellate Jurisdiction. negligence and incompetence of petitioner's former lawyer deprived petitioner of his day in court but was also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. that is. or modifies any substantive right. as such. > The petitioner next appealed to the Supreme Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari but was dismissed. of the 1987 . 6770 cannot validly authorize an appeal to this Court from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases. the Court has declared Section 27 of the Act to be unconstitutional since it expands the Supreme Court's jurisdiction without its advice and consent required under Article VI. > The petitioner was directed to file his answer but he did not bother to file any. Section 27 of Republic Act No. even from the standpoint of jurisdiction ex hypothesi the validity of the transfer of appeals in said cases to the Court of Appeals can be sustained. but if it operates as a means or implementing an existing right then the rule deals merely with procedure. Section 27 of Republic Act No. it is not procedural. he sent a telegram requesting for postponement. an employee of the Philippine Postal Corporation. Thus. are procedural and remedial merely and that. He failed to receive his pension checks. Taking all the foregoing circumstances in their true legal roles and effects. the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress for a disregard or infraction of them. When he went to Bacolod City Post Office to verify about the matter. In determining whether a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court. Neither can we consider such transfer as impairing a vested right because the parties have still a remedy and still a competent tribunal to administer that remedy. Accordingly. no position paper was ever submitted by him. Accordingly. it has been generally held that rules or statutes involving a transfer of cases from one court to another. who endorsed and encashed them for his personal benefit. they are applicable to actions pending at the time the statute went into effect [36] or. it cannot be said that transfer of appellate jurisdiction to the Court of Appeals in this case is an act of creating a new right of appeal because such power of the Supreme Court to transfer appeals to subordinate appellate courts is purely a procedural and not a substantive power. in the exercise of its rule-making power. directives and decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases are appealable to the Supreme Court via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. abridges. In Fabian v.[34] Furthermore. It consequently violates the proscription in Section 30. which may be changed by substitution without impairing vested rights. If the rule creates a right such as the right to appeal.

> Barriga filed a motion for reconsideration which petitioner denied. 6770 is silent on the remedy of annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases. The right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by. petitioner Office of the Ombudsman modified the decision and found Barriga guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and imposed on her the penalty of suspension for one year. > CA modified its earlier decision and declared as null and void the orders of petitioner. petitioner may no longer resort to the remedy of annulment of judgment after having filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. Cebu to implement the Order of suspension. the right to appeal is not to be considered granted to parties aggrieved by orders and decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases. again directed the municipal mayor of Carmen. In Tirol. > Upon review. filed a complaint with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman. and in accordance with. > Barriga then elevated the case to the Supreme Court. Petitioner submits that the Office of the Ombudsman is possessed with jurisdiction to entertain an administrative complaint against a public official and if found guilty. the Court has held that since The Ombudsman Act specifically deals with the remedy of an aggrieved party from orders. the provisions of law. directives and decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only. > Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas found Barriga guilty of misconduct and imposed on her the penalty of six months suspension from the service. Jr. public officials of Carmen. > Barriga made a request that the implementation of the penalty of one-year suspension be held in abeyance pending the issuance of the entry of judgment by this Court which was denied by the petitioner.Constitution. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs CA FACTS: > Municipal Councilor of Carmen. Petitioner explains that the implementation of administrative sanctions over erring . > Petitioner. > Pursuant to the CA’s Resolution. > Petitioner (Office of the Ombudsman) filed a Motion for Reconsideration and raised the issue of finality of the Ombudsman’s Decision. was denied for lack of merit. Cebu. Del Rosario. > CA explained that the acts of petitioner went beyond mere recommendation but rather imposed upon the mayor to implement the order of suspension which run counter to its authority. v. The rule is reiterated in Administrative Circular No. has the authority to impose a penalty and implement the decision. The appellate court said that the immediate implementation of petitioner’s Order was premature pending resolution of the appeal . all appeals from decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases are instead to be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. > Barriga filed a petition for review with the CA. Cebu for the immediate implementation of the penalty of suspension from service of respondent Barriga even though the case was pending on appeal? RULING: YES. entered into several irregular and anomalous transactions in their official capacity. reinstated Barriga as municipal accountant. R. 99-2-01-SC. ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in nullifying the orders of the Office of the Ombudsman to the municipal mayor of Carmen. Neither can he claim that he is not bound by his lawyer's actions. There must then be a law expressly granting such right. Hence. 11 This legal axiom is also applicable and even more true in actions for annulment of judgments which is an exception to the rule on finality of judgments. it is only in case of gross or palpable negligence of counsel when the courts can step in and accord relief to a client who would have suffered thereby. Cebu. through the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas. then challenge the order with CA through petition for review.A. Parenthetically. Moreover.

Desierto3 which vested in the Court of Appeals the appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Ombudsman pertaining to administrative disciplinary cases. an appeal may be made to the CA. we ruled that appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under . just like in the present case. directives and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only. Thus. in the criminal case filed against respondent. he shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal. abuse of authority. it was filed to the RTC. therefore. In case the penalty is suspension or removal and the respondent wins such appeal. However. gross inefficiency.public officials is not merely advisory in nature but is actually mandatory within the bounds of law. review the orders. > Petitioner Golangco and the Office of the Ombudsman separately filed motions for reconsideration of the decision. 32 and 34(a) of the Labor Code. It cannot. A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course. directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases? RULING NO. > The DOLE Secretary referred the letter-complaint to the POEA Administrator who instructed the POEA Licensing and Regulation Office. 3019. The appellate court correctly ruled that its jurisdiction extends only to decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases. The Office of the Ombudsman shall ensure that the decision shall be strictly enforced and properly implemented. gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct arising from the same incident was likewise filed against respondent. such appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory and the implementation of the decision follows as a matter of course. It is clear from the provision that when a public official has been found guilty of an administrative charge by the Office of the Ombudsman and the penalty imposed is suspension for more than a month. was later referred to the Court of Appeals based on the doctrine laid down in Fabian v. An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases. petitioner Golangco filed a criminal complaint against respondent before the Office of the Ombudsman for arbitrary detention and violation of Section 3. the Ombudsman’s order imposing on Barriga the penalty of suspension from office for one year without pay is immediately executory even pending appeal in the Court of Appeals. > Petitioner Golangco and Encenada were charged with violation of Articles 29. headed by respondent.) Inc. Hon. fine. > CA directed the Ombudsman to cause the withdrawal of the information filed with the RTC. > Aggrieved by his arrest. GOLANGCO vs FUNG FACTS: > Respondent is an employee of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). ISSUE: Whether or not the CA has jurisdiction to review the orders. In the Fabian case. These motions were denied by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders. > The cases were dismissed based on the finding that there was no evidence adduced showing that the agency was involved in the illegal acts. paragraphs (a) and (e) of Republic Act No. > An administrative complaint for oppression. to conduct an on-the-spot investigation of the activities of G&M (Phil. or censure shall be a ground for disciplinary action against said officer. and to verify in particular the placement fee being charged as alleged in the letter-complaint. suspend. demote. > With the Ombudsman’s approval of the Information. The refusal or failure by any officer without just cause to comply with an order of the Office of the Ombudsman to remove.

Bunye. ISSUE: Whether or not the CA was correct in dismissing the petition for certiorari and mandamus? RULING: YES. dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. not criminal cases. Desierto. PEREZ vs OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FACTS: > Petitioners. > The Office of the Ombudsman issued a resolution excluding respondent Bunye from the criminal indictment. we declared Section 27 unconstitutional for expanding the Supreme Courts appellate jurisdiction without its advice and consent. 96-149144. the proper remedy is to file with the Supreme Court an original petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The CA was correct in dismissing the petition for certiorari and mandamus. If it is an administrative case. We thus held that all appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals. . members of the Kilusang Bayan ng mga Magtitinda ng Bagong Pamilihang Bayan ng Muntinlupa. Respondents allegedly destroyed the doors of the KBMBPM office while serving on petitioners the Take-Over Order of the KBMBPM management.Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. It is settled that a judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction over the subject matter is void. In the case under consideration. It is the nature of the case that determines the proper remedy to be filed and the appellate court where such remedy should be filed by a party aggrieved by the decisions or orders of the Office of the Ombudsman. appeal should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. reviewed the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-0-93-0407 finding probable cause against respondent. In our en banc decision in Fabian vs. The petitioners assailed the exclusion in the CA through an original petition for certiorari and mandamus. instituted two complaints at the Office of the Ombudsman against several respondents. If it is a criminal case. It cannot be taken into account where an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 is resorted to as a remedy for judicial review. the Court of Appeals. however. it erroneously invoked as ratio decidendi Section 27 of RA 6770 which applies in administrative cases only. we categorically stated that said provision is involved only whenever an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 is taken from a decision in an administrative disciplinary action. we held that Section 27 applies only whenever an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 is taken from a decision in an administrative disciplinary action. It bears stressing that when we declared Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 as unconstitutional. Since the Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction over decisions and orders of the Ombudsman in criminal cases. one of whom was then Mayor Ignacio R. for violation of RA 3019 (also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). We find that. instead of confining itself to the administrative case appealed before it. although the CA was correct in dismissing the petition for certiorari. The CA. Nevertheless. such as from an incident in a criminal action. (KBMBPM). Such act by the Court of Appeals cannot be countenanced. such as the graft and corruption charge at bar. Inc. it’s ruling on the same is void. The Court of Appeals further ordered the Office of the Ombudsman to withdraw the criminal information filed by the same with the RTC of Manila docketed as Criminal Case No. which is still controlling.

not with the CA. therefore. Since the Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction over decisions and orders of the Ombudsman in criminal cases. Thus. The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders.) No. review the orders. and that Palacios then issued a recommendation. > Petitioner (Ombudsman) respectfully recommended that the charge against respondents for falsification of public documents be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. It cannot.A. conducted an investigation and rendered a report favorable to her husband. as amended. aside from the fact that the CA has no jurisdiction over decisions and orders of the Ombudsman in criminal cases. designated Celerina Darang. Ombudsman and Mendoza-Arce vs.A. The procedure set out in Kuizon vs. petitioners should have filed a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman resolution as it was the plain. as amended (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) against Zenaida H. it’s ruling on the same is void.A. Edilberto Darang. > Herein respondents then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with this Court. ISSUE: But even if the petition for certiorari had been filed in this Court. it was also incorrect to hold that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion. not filing a petition for certiorari directly in the Supreme Court.As the present controversy pertained to a criminal case. CA hereby DENIED as to the dismissal of the complaint against private respondents for falsification of public documents. Respondents alleged therein that Palacio. requiring that petitions for certiorari questioning the Ombudsmans orders or decisions in criminal cases should be filed in the Supreme Court and not the Court of Appeals. Whether or not the CA has no jurisdiction to review the findings of probable cause by the Ombudsman in a criminal case? RULING: It is settled that a judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction over the subject matter is void. The Court emphasized that parties seeking to question the resolutions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal cases or non-administrative cases. but GRANTED as to the provisional dismissal of the complaint for violation of Section 3. that Celerina Darang supported such report with public documents which she falsified. It is further recommended that the charge against respondents for Violation of Section 3. all of which were denied. YES. 3019. 3019. 3019. paragraph (e) [3] of Republic Act (R. The Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the assailed Resolution of the Ombudsman. Par. Palacio and spouses Edilberto and Celerina Darang. directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases. that Celerina Darang accepted such designation. is still the prevailing rule. the petitioners were correct in availing of the remedy of petition for certiorari under Rule 65 but they erred in filing it in the Court of Appeals. as amended. Ombudsman. . then officer-in-charge of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). directives and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only. be provisionally dismissed. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs HEIRS OF MARGARITA VENTURA FACTS: > Respondents filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a Complaint for Falsification of Public Documents and Violation of Section 3. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. No. when it is believed that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion. (e) of R. > Petitioners motion for reconsideration of the CA Decision which was denied. may file an original action for certiorari with this Court. but it was referred to CA. (e) of R. par. to award the landholding in dispute to Edilberto Darang. based on Celerina Darangs report. we would have dismissed it just the same. > Respondents filed several motions seeking reconsideration of the above Resolution. First. Senior Agrarian Reform Program Technologist to investigate the claims of respondents against the formers husband Edilberto Darang.

1829 on December 8. 1829 [5] (DECREE PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF APPREHENSION AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS) against petitioners Mayor Rodriguez and Barangay Captain Abonita before the Provincial Prosecution Office of Palawan. used her influence. as long as the offense charged in the information is intimately connected with the office and is alleged to have been perpetrated while the accused was in the performance. As found during the preliminary investigation. 705 effectively vested jurisdiction over the offense on the Sandiganbayan. As the request did not bear the approval of the CENRO. the offense can not exist without the office. Upon the orders of Mayor Rodriguez. committed the offense charged in relation to her office? RULING: YES. > The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman did file an information for violation of Section 1(b) P. No. Section 2. there being no personal motive to commit the crime and had the accused would not have committed it had he not held the aforesaid office . > Due to the unavailability of trucks to haul all the lumber to Puerto Princesa for safekeeping. in the course of her duty as Mayor. ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over petitioner Mayor Rodriguez. authority and office to call and command members of the municipal police of Taytay to haul and transfer the lumber which was still subject of an investigation for violation of P. > Petitioners additionally question the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. as Section 4 of R. No. The averment in the information that petitioner Rodriguez. as municipal mayor. 705 (REVISED FORESTRY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES) as neither of them are law enforcement officers or prosecutors but are mere executive officials of their respective local government units with entirely different official functions and. P. > Deputized Ombudsman Investigator recommended the filing of an information against petitioners for violation of Section 1(b). petitioner Mayor Rodriguez being a public officer and the charge against her being work-connected. Court laid down the principle that for an offense to be committed in relation to the office. > Barangay Captain Rodriguez appeared at the RAC Compound demanding the release of the lumber by presenting a letter-request addressed to the CENRO. P. 705. who holds a position of Grade 27 under the Local Government Code. The cutting and sawing of the lumber. and the Philippine Marines confiscated freshly cut/processed ipil lumber at Sitio Maypa. The circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense alleged to have been committed by petitioner Rodriguez are such. but the officer-in-charge refused to release the same without the advice of EIIB authorities. [33] Petitioners thus conclude that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. who is tasked to exercise general and operational control and supervision over the local police forces[54]. in that in the legal sense. they arguing that they are not tasked with the enforcement and implementation of P.D. > Pancol Barangay Captain went to the RAC Compound upon orders of Mayor Rodriguez to haul the lumber to the Municipal Hall. though improper or irregular. public office is not an essential element of the offense of obstruction of justice under Section 1(b) of P. as such. 1829. the Bantay Palawan.D. . [7] and the forwarding of the records of the case to the Office of the Ombudsman-Luzon for review and further proceedings.D. > complaints for robbery[4] and violation of Section 1(b).A. the relation between the crime and the office must be direct and not accidental. the Philippine National Police (PNP) Tiniguiban Command. hauled.D. of his official functions.D.D. 8249 limits the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to those offenses defined and penalized in Chapter II. were without proper permit or license. Book II of the Revised Penal Code. the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO). No. took advantage of her office and caused the hauling of the lumber to the municipal hall to obstruct the investigation of the case for violation of P. however. Taytay. 1829. As an exception. petitioner Rodriguez. What determines the jurisdiction of a court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the information. Barangay Pancol. the accused is held to have been indicted for an offense committed in relation to his office. the accusation against them is not in relation to their office. In the present case. and transferred the lumber to the Municipal Hall of Taytay.RODRIGUEZ vs SANDIGANBAYAN FACTS: > Acting upon an information that rampant illegal logging activities. 1998 against petitioners before the Sandiganbayan. it was denied. which were alleged to have been done under the supervision of Pancol Barangay Captain upon orders of herein petitioner Mayor Evelyn Rodriguez and Association of Barangay Captains President Roberto Rodriguez. some were hauled inside the Rural Agriculture Center (RAC). a joint team composed of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB). the court held that although public office is not an element of an offense charged. that the offense may not have been committed had said petitioner not held the office of the mayor. Barangay Captain Abonita returned to the RAC Compound accompanied by two fully armed policemen who then and there forcibly took possession. Title VII.D.

in a legal sense. the offense committed cannot exist without the office. to the damage and prejudice of the government. > The petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the said Amended Informations on the ground that under Section 4 of Republic Act No. Villamor is a constituent element of malversation and illegal use of public funds or property. seeking to nullify the aforementioned Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan. There are two classes of public office-related crimes under subparagraph (b) of Section 4 of Rep. We agree with the ruling of the Sandiganbayan that the public office of the accused Municipal Mayor Virginio E. through improper or irregular conduct. and even if the petitioners position as municipal accountant is only classified as SG 24. her position as municipal accountant is classified as Salary Grade (SG) 24. > The third Amended Information. which by their nature fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.BARRIGA vs SANDIGANBAYAN ISSUE: FACTS: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the criminal case of public officer/employee who has salary grade below 27? > Accused VIRGINIO E. Villamor. charged the same accused with illegal use of public funds. docketed as Criminal Case No. > The petitioner thus filed the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. We agree with the ruling of the Sandiganbayan that based on the allegations of the Amended Informations and Rep. under Section 4 of Rep. had in their possession and custody public funds intended for the payment of Five (5) rolls of Polyethylene pipes to be used in the Corte-Cantumog Water System Project. it has original jurisdiction over the crimes of malversation and illegal use of public funds. The determinative fact is that the position of her co-accused. 7975. did then and there willfully. embezzle and convert into their own personal use and benefit. in committing the said felonies. the Sandiganbayan still has exclusive original jurisdiction over the cases lodged against her. > Moreover. they have failed to do so. . such offenses or felonies which are intimately connected with the public office and are perpetrated by the public officer or employee while in the performance of his official functions. > Office of the Special Prosecutor posits that any error committed by the Sandiganbayan in denying the petitioners motion to quash is merely an error of judgment and not of jurisdiction. may be liable for malversation or illegal use of public funds or property if such public officer or private individual conspires with an accountable public officer to commit malversation or illegal use of public funds or property. who occupies a position classified as SG 27. and despite demands made upon them to account for said amount. being then the Municipal Mayor and Municipal Accountant. Accused mayors position is classified as SG 27. VILLAMOR and DINAH C. 8249. the municipal mayor. respectively. 8249: first. the crimes of malversation and illegal use of public funds are classified as crimes committed by public officers in relation to their office. the municipal mayor. YES. at least one of whom belongs to any of the five categories thereunder enumerated at the time of the commission of such crimes. both public officers. Act No. and under the last paragraph of Section 2 of Rep. The petitioner claims that the graft court committed grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing the same. second. 8249. 8294. It further claims that the petitioner has been charged of malversation and illegal use of public funds in conspiracy with Municipal Mayor Virginio E. Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over crimes and felonies committed by public officers and employees. the Sandiganbayan has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the offense. or even a private individual. take. 27437. Act No. RULING. The Court has also ruled that a private person conspiring with an accountable public officer in committing malversation is also guilty of malversation . Since the Amended Informations alleged that the petitioner conspired with her co-accused. those crimes or felonies in which the public office is a constituent element as defined by statute and the relation between the crime and the offense is such that. Conniving and confederating together and mutually helping each other. Act No. the fact that her position as municipal accountant is classified as SG 24 and as such is not an accountable officer is of no moment. We reiterate that the classification of the petitioners position as SG 24 is of no moment. is classified as SG 27. BARRIGA. > Furthermore. It must be stressed that a public officer who is not in charge of public funds or property by virtue of her official position. It insists that there is no more need for the Amended Informations to specifically allege intimacy between the crimes charged and the office of the accused since the said crimes can only be committed by public officers. She averred that the Amended Informations failed to allege and show the intimate relation between the crimes charged and her official duties as municipal accountant. > Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying the motion of the petitioner. if the position of one of the principal accused is classified as SG 27. Act No. the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the crimes charged. which are conditions sine qua non for the graft court to acquire jurisdiction over the said offense. the Sandiganbayan still has jurisdiction over the said crimes. unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate.

as amended by Section 2 of Rep. 1997 is the special law that provided for the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan "otherwise" than that prescribed in Republic Act No. 3019. > The petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion [4] for the dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction over the officers charged or. Inding. with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. Inding. faked buy-bust operations against alleged pushers or users to enable him to claim or collect from the coffers of the city government. to the damage and prejudice of the government in the aforestated amount. 3019. under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. particularly in the operation against drug abuse. unlawfully and criminally amass and acquire funds belonging to the National Government by opening an unauthorized bank account." Republic Act No. unlawfully and criminally. 8249 (vesting in the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over offenses and felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by public officers and employees mentioned in subsection (a) of Section 4 in relation to their office where the accused holds a position with salary grade "27" and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. while in the performance of his official functions. > Respondent Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying the petitioners omnibus motion. > Sandiganbayan issued a resolution denying petitioner's motion to quash. enacted on February 5. thereby succeeding in misappropriating. A. reiterating the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the case but subsequently denied.ORGANO vs SANDIGANBAYAN FACTS: > Accused being then public officers and taking advantage of their official positions as employees of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. jurisdiction over the case falls with the Regional Trial Court. > Petitioner filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion to quash information for lack of jurisdiction. confabulating and confederating with one another. On the other hand. 6758). 7975. did then and there wilfully. 6758) in relation to their office. in the alternative. approved on February 5.)? RULING: NO. and since it is a special law. we rule that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the crime of plunder unless committed by public officials and employees occupying the positions with Salary Grade "27" or higher. ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan at the time of the filing of the information on August 15. as amended by Republic Act No. the Sandiganbayan incurred in serious error of jurisdiction. No. entitling petitioner to the relief prayed for. INDING vs SANDIGANBAYAN FACTS: > Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan charging petitioner Ricardo S. without qualification and regardless of salary grade. 1997 had jurisdiction over the case. 8429. contending that the Sandiganbayan no longer had jurisdiction over the case under R. the Information alleged that the petitioner has a salary grade of 27.(1)(b) of P. respondent Sandiganbayan's position is that Republic Act No. advantages and benefits. According to the court. to their own personal gains. 7659. In ruling in favor of its jurisdiction. contend that Section 4 a. 7080 which defines and penalizes the crime of "plunder" vests in the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction thereof. 1997. ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over criminal case of a public official occupying a position as a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod who was charged with violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. 7080. Consequently. otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act regardless of their salary grade? . willfully. 1606. a high-ranking public officer. even though none of the accused occupied positions with Salary Grade 27 or higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. > The respondents. 3019. > Petitioner filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion for reconsideration.D. However. through the Office of the Special Prosecutor. it constitutes an exception to the general law. misusing and/or malversing said public funds tantamount to a raid on the public treasury. for the referral of the case either to the Regional Trial Court or the Municipal Trial Court for appropriate proceedings. was provisionally placed within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan "until otherwise provided by law. 1997 of Republic Act No. Petitioner contends that since none of the accused holds a position with Salary Grade "27" and higher. Act No. converting. 8249. committed by the members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod. being a Councilor of Dapitan City and as such. did then and there. The Court orders the Sandiganbayan to forthwith refer the case to the court of proper jurisdiction. conspiring. Act No. the crime of "plunder" defined in Republic Act No. through checks made payable to themselves and/or the sole proprietorship firms of the above named private persons. > Accused Ricardo S. as amended. 7080. in view of the enactment on February 5. without proper authority. expressly provides that the Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over violations of Rep. a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dapitan City. with evident bad faith and manifest partiality. Act No.

The specific inclusion of the foregoing officials constitutes an exception to the general qualification relating to officials of the executive branch as occupying the positions of regional director and higher.. and other provincial department heads. and the officials specifically enumerated in (a) to (g) of Section 4 a. (g) Presidents.e. Rep. Section 2. within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is apparent from the legislative history of both Rep. 3019 and Chapter II. directors or trustees. the legislature has explicitly made the officials so enumerated in RA No. . it is well to state that the lawmakers are very well aware that not all the positions specifically mentioned as those within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan have a Salary Grade of 27 and higher. (f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants. or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations. vice-mayors. [41] or even Section 4 of Rep. and (5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. assessors. The Sandiganbayan. violation of Rep. (4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions. regardless of their salary grades. Act No.D. likewise fall within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. 7975. 1606. 7975 further specifically included the following officials as falling within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan: (a) Provincial governors. assessors. otherwise classified as grade 27 and higher. (2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade 27 and up under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. (d) Philippine army and air force colonels. Act No. otherwise classified as grade 27 and higher. naval captains. as amended by Section 2 of Rep. members of the sangguniang panlungsod. Title VII of the Revised Penal Code. (e) PNP chief superintendent and PNP officers of higher rank. officials of the executive branch with SG 27 or higher. as amended by Section 2 of Rep. 8249 [42] for that matter. vice-governors. to wit: (1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher. 7975 and 8249. . No. 7975 has grouped them into five categories. and provincial treasurers. 7975. 3019 committed by officials in the executive branch with SG 27 or higher. i. engineers. (c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher. city treasurers.RULING: YES. In other words. 7975 and RA No. Yet. Rep. Members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod are specifically included as among those within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan in Section 4 a. Act No. there is no dispute that the petitioner is a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dapitan City and he is charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of Rep.(1) (b) of P. 8249 as falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan because of the nature of these officials functions and responsibilities as well as the power they can wield over their respective area of jurisdiction. For purposes of determining the government officials that fall within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan in cases involving violations of Rep. state universities or educational institutions or foundations. of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.(1) of P. and other city department heads. (3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution. No. therefore. Act No. In this connection too. members of the sangguniang panlalawigan. Act No. Act No. 3019. That the legislators intended to include certain public officials. With respect to the first category. and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor. regardless of their salary grades. In this case. Act No. Act No. (b) City mayors. without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution. 1606. and all officers of higher rank.D. engineers. has original jurisdiction over the petitioner’s case . Acts Nos.