301 SCRA 298; G.R. NO.

12809620 JAN 1999]

LACSON VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

Facts:
Eleven persons believed to be members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang, an organized crime syndicate
involved in bank robberies, were slain by elements of the Anti-Bank Robbery andIntelligence Task Group
(ABRITG). Among those included in the ABRITG were petitioners and petitioner-intervenors.

Acting on a media expose of SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes, a member of the Criminal Investigation
Command, that what actually transpired was a summary execution and not a shoot-out between the
Kuratong Baleleng gang members and the ABRITG, Ombudsman Aniano Desiertoformed a panel of
investigators to investigate the said incident. Said panel found the incident as a legitimate police
operation. However, a review board modified the panel’s finding and recommended the indictment for
multiple murder against twenty-six respondents including herein petitioner, charged as principal, and
herein petitioner-intervenors, charged as accessories. After a reinvestigation, the Ombudsman filed
amended informations before the Sandiganbayan, where petitioner was charged only as an accessory.

The accused filed separate motions questioning the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, asserting that
under the amended informations, the cases fall within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court
pursuant to Section 2 of R.A. 7975. They contend that the said law limited the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan to cases where one or ore of the “principal accused” are government officals with Salary
Grade 27 or higher, or PNP officials with rank of Chief Superintendent or higher. Thus, they did not
qualify under said requisites. However, pending resolution of their motions, R.A. 8249 was approved
amending the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by deleting the word “principal” from the phrase
“principal accused” in Section 2 of R.A. 7975.

Petitioner questions the constitutionality of Section 4 of R.A. 8249, including Section 7 which provides
that the said law shall apply to all cases pending in any court over which trial has not begun as of the
approval hereof.

Issues:

(1) Whether or not Sections 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 violate the petitioners’ right to due process and the
equal protection clause of the Constitution as the provisions seemed to have been introduced for the
Sandiganbayan to continue to acquire jurisdiction over the Kuratong Baleleng case.

(2) Whether or not said statute may be considered as an ex-post facto statute.

(3) Whether or not the multiple murder of the alleged members of the Kuratong Baleleng was
committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP officers which is essential to the determination
whether the case falls within the Sandiganbayan’s or Regional Trial Court’s jurisdiction.

Ruling:

Petitioner and intervenors’ posture that Sections 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 violate their right to equal
protection of the law is too shallow to deserve merit. No concrete evidence and convincing argument
were presented to warrant such a declaration. Every classification made by the law is presumed
reasonable and the party who challenges the law must present proof of arbitrariness. The classification
is reasonable and not arbitrary when the following concur: (1) it must rest on substantial distinction; (2)
it must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only, and (4)
must apply equally to all members of the same class; all of which are present in this case.

Paragraph a of Section 4 provides that it shall apply “to all cases involving” certain public officials and
under the transitory provision in Section 7, to “all cases pending in any court.” Contrary to petitioner
and intervenors’ argument, the law is not particularly directed only to the Kuratong Baleleng cases. The
transitory provision does not only cover cases which are in the Sandiganbayan but also in “any court.”

There is nothing ex post facto in R.A. 8249. Ex post facto law, generally, provides retroactive effect of
penal laws. R.A. 8249 is not apenal law. It is a substantive law on jurisdiction which is not penal in
character. Penal laws are those acts of the Legislature which prohibit certain acts and establish penalties
for their violations or those that define crimes and provide for their punishment. R.A. 7975, as regards
the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction, its mode of appeal and other procedural matters, has been declared by
the Court as not a penal law, but clearly a procedural statute, one which prescribes rules of procedure
by which courts applying laws of all kinds can properly administer justice. Not being a penal law, the
retroactive application of R.A. 8249 cannot be challenged as unconstitutional.

In People vs. Montejo, it was held that an offense is said to have been committed in relation to the
office if it is intimately connected with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the
performance of his official functions. Such intimate relation must be alleged in the information which is
essential in determining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. However, upon examination of the
amended information, there was no specific allegation of facts that the shooting of the victim by the
said principal accused was intimately related to the discharge of their official duties as police officers.
Likewise, the amended information does not indicate that the said accused arrested and investigated
the victim and then killed the latter while in their custody. The stringent requirement that the charge set
forth with such particularity as will reasonably indicate the exact offense which the accused is alleged to
have committed in relation to his office was not established.

Consequently, for failure to show in the amended informations that the charge of murder was
intimately connected with the discharge of official functions of the accused PNP officers, the offense
charged in the subject criminal cases is plain murder and, therefore, within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and not the Sandiganbayan.

Barriga vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 161784-86April 26, 2005

FACTS

On April 3, 2003, the Office of the Ombudsman submitted three Amended Informations to the
Sandiganbayan against Virginio Villamor (Municipal Mayor) and Dinah Barriga (Municipal Accountant) of
the Municipality of Carmen, Cebu. The First Amended Information charged Barriga and Villamor with
Malversation of Public Funds. The facts of this information stated that on or about January 1996, the
said acccused had in their possession and custody public funds amounting to P23,047.20 intended for
the payment of 5 rolls of Polyethelene pipesto be used in the Corte-Canumong Water System Project of
the Municipality of Carmen, Cebu. Being public officers, they were held accountable for the funds.
However, by this same capacity, the said accused misappropriated, took, embezzled, and converted the
said amount for their own personal use and benefit. The second and third Amended Informations
charged Villamor and Barriga with Illegal Use of PublicFunds. The facts of the Second Information stated
that on or about November 1995, the said accused had in their possession and control public funds
amounting to P1305.00, representing a portion of the CVWSP Fund intended and appropriated for the
Construction of Deep Well and Spring Box (Level I projects) and Wate rWorks System (Level II projects)
of specific brgy beneficiaries and recipients. By reason of the duties of their office, they are held
accountable for the said funds. However, by such capacity, they connived, confederated and helped
each other to disburse the said amount for the Spring Box of Brgy. Natimo-an, Carmen, Cebu. - abrgy not
included as a recipient of the CVWSP Trust Fund. Thus, the accused used the said fund to a public
purpose different from which it was intended or appropriated. The facts of the Third Information stated
that on or about January 1997, the accused had in their possessionP267, 537.96 from the CVWSP Fund
intended for the same purpose as that in the 2nd Information. However, the accused disbursed the said
amount for the construction & expansion of Brgy. Cantucong Water System, a level II project, thus the
public funds were used for a public purpose different from that which it was intended or appropriated.

ISSUES:
1.WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the crimes charged.2.If the court has jurisdiction, WON
Barriga should also be held liable:

A. Despite the Amended Informations' failure to show the intimate relations between the crimes
chargedand her official duties?
B. Despite being only of SG 24?
C. Despite the fact that she is not an accountable officer since, as Municipal Accountant, the funds in
theAmended Informations were not under her control of administration?

HELD:

1.Yes. Based on the allegations in the Amended Informations and RA 8249, the Sandiganbayan
hasoriginal jurisdiction over the crimes of Malversation and Illegal Use of Public Funds.
RA 8249 -SB has orig jurisdiction over crimes and felonies committed by public officers and employees,
at least one of whom belongs to any of the five categories thereunder enumerated at the time of the
commission of such crimes.
2. classes of public office-related crimes under Sec.4(b), RA 8249:
a. Public office is constituent element - offense cannot exist without office
b. Intimately connected with public office - perpetrated by p.o./employee while in exercise of functions

The Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over criminal cases involving crimes and feloniesunder the
first classification. The Sandiganbayan likewise has original jurisdiction over criminalcases involving
crimes or felonies committed by the public officers and employees enumerated inSection(a)(1) to (5)
under the second classification if the Information contains specific factual allegations showing the
intimate connection between the offense charged and the public office of theaccused, and the discharge
of his official duties or functions - whether improper or irregular.
The public office of the accused Municipal Mayor Virginio Villamor is a constituent element of
malversation and illegal use of public funds or property. Accused mayor’s position is classified as SG 27.
Since the Amended Informations alleged that the petitioner conspired with her co-accused in
committing the said felonies, 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; the Sandiganbayan still has exclusive original
jurisdiction over the cases lodged against her.
2.Yes.
A. Considering that the public office of the accused is by statute a constituent element of thecrime
charged, there is no need for the Prosecutor to state in the Information specific factual allegations of the
intimacy between the office and the crime charged, or that the accused committed the crime in the
performance of his duties.

B. The classification of the petitioner’s position as SG 24 is of no moment. The determinative fact is that
the position of her co-accused, the municipal mayor, is classified as SG 27, and under the last paragraph
of Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 7975, if the position of one of the principal accused is classified as SG27, the
Sandiganbayan has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the offense.

C. Under Section 474 of the Local Government Code, she is not obliged to receive public money or
property, nor is she obligated to account for the same; hence, she is not an accountable officer within
the context of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. Under the said article, an accountable public
officer is one who has actual control of public funds or property by reason of the duties of his office
Even then, it cannot thereby be necessarily concluded that a municipal accountant can never be
convicted for malversation under the Revised Penal Code.

The name or relative importance of the office or employment is not the controlling factor. The nature of
the duties of the public officer or employee is the factor which determines whether or not malversation
is committed by the accused public officer or employee. Hence, a mere clerk in the provincial or
municipal government may be held guilty of malversation if he or she is entrusted with public funds and
misappropriates the same.

It must be stressed that a public officer who is not in charge of public funds/ property by virtue of her
official position, or even a private individual, may be liable for malversation or illegal use of public funds
or property if such public officer/private individual conspires with an accountable public officer to
commit malversation or illegal use of public funds or property.

The Court has also ruled that one who conspires with the provincial treasurer in committing six counts
of malversation is also a co-principal in committing those offenses, and that a private person conspiring
with an accountable public officer in committing malversation is also guilty of malversation (People v.
Sendaydiego, G.R. Nos. L-33252 to L-33254).