JURISDICTION

People v. Sandiganbayan and Rolando Plaza

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.

RULING:

The court held in 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 law. Particularly and exclusively enumerated are:

(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and

provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads;
(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurer,
assessors, engineers, and other city department heads xxxxxxxxxxx

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.

Therefore, Plaza, being a member of Sangguniang Panlungsod and specifically enumerated in RA

8249 is under the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan.

Careyssa Mae I. Ipil CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE RECOLETOS
JURISDICTION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND VICTORIA AMANTE

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. 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.

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. The People sought to have the dismissal reversed and set aside by the Supreme
Court.

ISSUE:

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:

Those that are not classified as grade 26 and below may still fall within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan provided they hold a position enumerated in the law. The court held that Section 54 (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. 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 employees office. x x x 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 x x x of his official function x x x the accused is held
to have been indicted in relation to his office.

Careyssa Mae I. Ipil CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE RECOLETOS
JURISDICTION

Serana vs Sandiganbayan
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. The renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex
failed to materialize.

The Ombudsman, after due investigation, found probable cause to indict petitioner and her brother
Jade Ian D. Serana for estafa in the Sandiganbayan.

Petitioner claims that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over her person because as a UP
student regent, she was not a public officer since she merely represented the students of the
institution. She added that she was just a simple student and did not receive any salary as a student
regent and thus could not fall under any salary grade.

Petitioner moved to quash the information. She claimed that the Sandiganbayan does not have
any jurisdiction over the offense charged or over her person, in her capacity as UP student regent.

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:

Whether or not a student regent of a state university is a public officer and under the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan.

RULING:

The court ruled that the petitioner is a public officer whose position is covered by the law vesting
jurisdiction over the Sandiganbayan. The provisions of Sec 4(a)(1)(g) of P.D. 1606 as amended, explicitly
vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of
government-owned of controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or
foundations. The petitioner, as a student regent falls under this category. The board of Regents of the
University of the Philippines performs functions similar to those of a board of trustees of a non-stock
corporation. By express mandate of law, petitioner is, indeed, a public officer as contemplated by P.D. No.
1606. The court added that compensation is not an essential element of public office.

Careyssa Mae I. Ipil CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE RECOLETOS
JURISDICTION

Geduspan vs People
FACTS:

Marilyn Geduspan is a Regional manager/Director of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation,

a government owned and controlled corporation created under RA 7875. Geduspan was accused
of violating Sec 3 (e) of RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. It was alleged that in
the course of the performance of her official functions, she had been conniving, confederating an
mutually helping Dr. Evangeline Farahmand, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Tiong Bi
Medical Center, Inc. to the damage and injury of West Negros College, Inc.

With deliberate intent, with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously release the claims for payments of patients confined at L.N. Memorial
Hospital with Philippine Health Insurance Corp., prior to January 1, 2000, amounting to NINETY
ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIFTY-FOUR and 64/100 (P91,954.64), Philippine Currency,
to Tiong Bi Medical Center, Tiong Bi, Inc. despite clear provision in the Deed of Conditional Sale
executed on November 27, 1999, involving the sale of West Negros College, Inc. to Tiong Bi, Inc.
or Tiong Bi Medical Center, that the possession, operation and management of the said hospital
will be turned over by West Negros College, Inc. to Tiong Bi, Inc. effective January 1, 2000, thus
all collectibles or accounts receivable accruing prior to January 1, 2000 shall be due to West Negros
College, Inc.

Petitioner admits that she holds the position of Dept. Mgr. A of Philhelath. She, however, contends
that the position of Dept. Mgr. A is classified under salary grade 26 and therefore outside the
jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over a regional director/manager of

government-owned or controlled corporations organized and incorporated under the Corporation Code for
purposes of R.A. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act.

RULING:

The court ruled that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the petitioner. The court found that
petitioner held the position of Department Director A of Philhealth at the time of the commission of the
offense and that position was among those enumerated in paragraph 1(g), Section 4a of RA 8249 over
which the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction and which provision includes Presidents, directors or trustees,
or managers of government-owned and controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions
or foundations.

It is of no moment that the position of petitioner is merely classified as salary grade 26. While the
first part of the above quoted provision covers only officials of the executive branch with the salary grade
27 and higher, the second part thereof specifically includes other executive officials whose positions may
not be of grade 27 and higher but who are by express provision of law placed under the jurisdiction of the
said court.

Careyssa Mae I. Ipil CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE RECOLETOS