People v. Sandiganbayan and Rolando Plaza, G.R.

No. 169004, Sept. 15, 2010

Crim Pro - Jurisdiction

Facts:
The accused, Rolando Plaza was a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Toledo City,
Cebu, with a salary grade 25. He was charged in the Sandiganbayan for violating Section 89 of P.D. No.
1445 or The Auditing Code of the Philippines. Allegedly, he failed to liquidate the cash advances he
received by reason of his office on December 19, 1995 in the amount of P30,000. On April 7, 2005, Plaza
filed a motion to dismiss with the Sandiganbayan which was found to be with merit.

The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction over the case. So, the petitioner
filed this case to the Supreme Court contending that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over criminal
cases involving public officials and employees enumerated under Section 4 (a) (1) of P.D. 1606, whether
or not occupying a position classified under salary grade 27 and above, who are charged not only for
violation of R.A. 3019, R.A. 1379 or any of the felonies included in Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II
of the Revised Penal Code, but also for crimes committed in relation to their office.

Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a member of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod whose salary grade is below 27 and charged with violation of The Auditing Code of the
Philippines.

Held: Yes, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod whose
salary grade is below 27 and charged with violation of The Auditing Code of the Philippines.

Those that are classified as Grade 26 and below may still fall within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan provided that they hold the positions enumerated by the same law. Particularly and
exclusively enumerated are

provincial governors, vice-govenors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial

treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads ( Sec. 4 (1) (a) of P.D. 1606);
city mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors,
engineers, and other city department heads (Sec. 4 (1) (b) of P.D. 1606);

officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position as consul and higher; Philippine army
and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank; PNP chief superintendent and PNP
officers of higher rank; City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors
in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor; and presidents, directors or trustees, or
managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or
foundations.
 In connection therewith, Section 4 (b) of P.D. 1606 provides that other offenses or felonies
committed by public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) in relation to their office also fall
under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

So, those public officials enumerated in Sec. 4 (a) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, may not only be
charged in the Sandiganbayan with violations of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379 or Chapter II, Section 2,
Title VII of the Revised Penal Code, but also with other offenses or felonies in relation to their office. The
Supreme Court ruled in earlier cases that: 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, though improper or irregular, of his official functions, there being no personal motive to
commit the crime and had the accused not have committed it had he not held the aforesaid office, the
accused is held to have been indicted for an offense committed in relation to his office. In the offenses
involved in Section 4 (a), it is not disputed that public office is essential as an element of the said offenses
themselves, while in those offenses and felonies involved in Section 4 (b), it is enough that the said
offenses and felonies were committed in relation to the public officials or employees' office.

In a relatively recent case, a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of a city was charged for
allegedly criminally failing to liquidate certain cash advances he made in violation of the Auditing
Code of the Philippines. The core issue raised in this case of People of the Philippines v.
Sandiganbayan and Rolando Plaza, G.R. No. 169004, September 15, 2010, was whether or not the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod whose salary grade
is below 27 and charged with violation of The Auditing Code of the Philippines. The Court held in
the affirmative, citing the provisions of R.A. 8249 and those that are classified as Grade 26 and
below may still fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan provided that they hold the
positions thus enumerated by the same law.

G.R. No. 167304 August 25, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS.
SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) AND VICTORIA AMANTE,
RESPONDENTS.
[PERALTA]

Facts:
Victoria Amante was a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Toledo City, Province of Cebu at the time pertinent
to this case. On January 14, 1994, she was able to get hold of a cash advance in the amount of P71,095.00 in order to defray
seminar expenses of the Committee on Health and Environmental Protection, which she headed. No liquidation was made after
almost two years and so on December 22, 1995, a demand letter was issued by the City Auditor asking respondent to settle her
unliquidated cash advance within 72 hours from receipt of the demand. Upon the recommendation of the Commission on Audit
(COA), the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas (OMB-Visayas) resolved to file an Information for Malversation of Public
Funds. The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) found probable cause to indict respondent Amante and thus on May 21,
2004, the Office of the Special Prosecutor(OSP) filed an Information with the Sandiganbayan accusing Victoria Amante of
violating Section 89 of P.D. No. 1445 (The Auditing Code of the Philippines).

Respondent Amante in her MOTION TO DEFER ARRAIGNMENT AND MOTION FOR REINVESTIGATION dated
November 18, 2004 stated that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the said criminal case because respondent Amante
was then a local official who was occupying a position of salary grade 26, whereas Section 4 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8249
provides that the Sandiganbayan shall have original jurisdiction only in cases where the accused holds a position otherwise
classified as Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989, R.A. No. 6758.

The Sandiganbayan, in its Resolution dated February 28, 2005, dismissed the case against Amante for lack of
jurisdiction. The dismissal, however, is without prejudice to the filing of this case to the proper court.

Issue/s:
Whether or not a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod under Salary Grade 26 who was charged with violation of
The Auditing Code of the Philippines falls within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

Ruling:
The present case falls under P.D. No. 1606 as amended by R.A. No. 8249. Under Section 4(a) of said law, the
following offenses are specifically enumerated: violations of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, R.A. No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section
2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code. In order for the Sandiganbayan to acquire jurisdiction over the said offenses, the latter
must be committed by, among others, officials of the executive branch occupying positions of regional director and higher,
otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. However, the law is
not devoid of exceptions. Those that are classified as Grade 26 and below may still fall within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan provided that they hold the positions thus enumerated by the same law. Particularly and exclusively enumerated
are provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors,
engineers, and other provincial department heads; city mayors, vice-mayors, members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, city
treasurers, assessors, engineers , and other city department heads; officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position as
consul and higher; Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank; PNP chief
superintendent and PNP officers of higher rank; City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and
prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor; and presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of
government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations. In connection
therewith, Section 4(b) of the same law provides that other offenses or felonies committed by public officials and employees
mentioned in subsection (a) in relation to their office also fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

By simple analogy, applying the provisions of the pertinent law, respondent Amante, being a member of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod at the time of the alleged commission of an offense in relation to her office, falls within the original
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The provision of the law shows that those public officials enumerated in Section 4(a) of P.D.
No. 1606, as amended, may not only be charged in the Sandiganbayan with violations of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379 or
Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code, but also with other offenses or felonies in relation to their office. The
said other offenses and felonies are broad in scope but are limited only to those that are committed in relation to the public
official or employee's office.

In the offenses involved in Section 4(a), public office is essential as an element of the said offenses themselves, while
in those offenses and felonies involved in Section 4(b), it is enough that the said offenses and felonies were committed in relation
to the public officials or employees' office. Moreover, Section 4(b) does not mention any qualification as to the public officials
involved. It simply stated, public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) of the same section. Therefore, it refers to
those public officials with Salary Grade 27 and above, except those specifically enumerated. It is a well-settled principle of legal
hermeneutics that words of a statute will be interpreted in their natural, plain and ordinary acceptation and signification, unless it
is evident that the legislature intended a technical or special legal meaning to those words.
 The Petition was GRANTED and the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan (Third Division) NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE.
Consequently, case was REMANDED to the Sandiganbayan for further proceedings.

The issue presented to the Court for resolution in the case involving Amante was whether or not
a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod under salary grade 26 who was charged with violation
of the Auditing Code of the Philippines for failure to liquidate cash advances falls within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Earlier the Sandiganbayan dismissed the case against Amante
for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to the filing of the case in the proper court. The People
sought to have the dismissal reversed and set aside by the Supreme Court.

Those that are not classified as grade 26 and below may still fall within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan provided they hold the position enumerated in the law. As in the case of Plaza,
the Court held that Section 4 (b) of the same law provides that other offenses or felonies
committed by public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) in relation to their office
also fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan .

Serana vs Sandiganbayan, GR 162059, January

22, 2008
Posted by Pius Morados on November 10, 2011

(Public Officer, Student Regent)

Facts: Accused movant charged for the crime of estafa is a government scholar and a student
regent of the University of the Phillipines, Diliman, Quezon City. While in the performance of
her official functions, she represented to former President Estrada that the renovation of the
Vinzons Hall of the UP will be renovated and renamed as Pres. Joseph Ejercito Estrada
Student Hall and for which purpose accused requested the amount of P15,000,000.00.

Petitioner claims that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over her person because as a UP
student regent, she was not a public officer due to the following: 1.) that being merely a
member in representation of the student body since she merely represented her peers; 2.)
that she was a simple student and did not receive any salary as a UP student regent; and 3.)
she does not fall under Salary Grade 27.

The Ombudsman contends that petitioner, as a member of the BOR is a public officer, since
she had the general powers of administration and exercise the corporate powers of UP.
Compensation is not an essential part of public office.

Moreover, the Charter of the University of the Philippines reveals that the Board of Regents, to
which accused-movant belongs, exclusively exercises the general powers of administration
and corporate powers in the university. It is well-established in corporation law that the
corporation can act only through its board of directors, or board of trustees in the case of non-
stock corporations.

Issue: WON a government scholar and UP student regent is a public officer.

Held: Yes.
First, Public office is the right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, by which for a
given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an
individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be
exercise by him for the benefit of the public. The individual so invested is a public
officer. (Laurel vs Desierto)
Delegation of sovereign functions is essential in the public office. An investment in an
individual of some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him
for the benefit of the public makes one a public officer.

Second, Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606 explicitly vest the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction
over Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled
corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations. Hence, it is not only
the salary grade that determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

As the Sandiganbayan pointed out, the BOR performs functions similar to those of a board of
trustees of a non-stock corporation. By express mandate of law, petitioner is a public officer
as contemplated by P.D. No. 1606 the statute defining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

Third, it is well established that compensation is not an essential element of public office. At
most, it is merely incidental to the public office.

Hence, Petitioner is a public officer by express mandate of P.D.No. 1606 and jurisprudence.