B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED
People v Sandiganbayan and Rolando Plaza
I. Recit-ready summary
Rolando Plaza, a member of the Sangguniang Panlungod of Toledo City,
Cebu with salary grade 25 had been charged in the Sandiganbayan with
violation of The Auditing Code of the Philippines for his failure to liquidate
the case advances he received on December 1995 in the amount of
Php33,000. This is a petition under Rule 45 that seeks to reverse and set
aside the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan dismissing People v Rolando
Plaza for lack of jurisdiction. The issue in this case is WON 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? Court ruled in the affirmative.
Section 4 of P.D. 1606, as amended by Section 2 of R.A. 7975 which took
effect on May 16, 1995, which was again amended on February 5, 1997 by
R.A. 8249, is the law that should be applied in the present case, the offense
having been allegedly committed on or about December 19, 1995 and the
Information having been filed on March 25, 2004. The present case falls
under Section 4 (b) where other offenses and felonies committed by public
officials or employees in relation to their office are involved where the said
provision, contains no exceptions. What applies in the present case is the
general rule that jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is to be
determined at the time of the institution of the action, not at the time of the
commission of the offense. The present case having been instituted on
March 25, 2004, the provisions of R.A. 8249 shall govern. 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.
II. Facts of the case
Rolando Plaza, a member of the Sangguniang Panlungod of Toledo
City, Cebu with salary grade 25 had been charged in the Sandiganbayan
with violation of The Auditing Code of the Philippines for his failure to
liquidate the case advances he received on December 1995 in the amount of
Php 33,000. The information was filed on March 25, 2004.
G.R. NO: 169044
How jurisdiction is conferred and determined: The facts alleged in the complaint and the law in force at the commencement of
action determine the jurisdiction
VOL 32 [August 6, 1991]
People v Sandiganbayan and Rolando Plaza
Plaza filed a Motion to Dismiss with the Sandiganbayan. The
Sandiganbayan promulgated its Resolution dismissing the case for lack of
jurisdiction, without prejudice to its filing before the proper court.
PETITIONER: the Sandiganbayan has criminal jurisdiction over
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…but also for crimes committed in relation to office.
RESPONDENT (Plaza): the Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction
only over the following cases: (a) where the accused is a public official with
salary grade 27 and higher; (b) in cases where the accused is a public
official below grade 27 but his position is one of those mentioned in the
enumeration in Section 4(a)(1)(a) to (g) of PD 1606; and (c) if the
indictment involves offenses or felonies other than the three aforementioned
statues, the general rule that a public official must occupy a position with
salary grade 27 and higher in order that the Sandiganbayan could exercise
jurisdiction over him must apply.
III. Issue/s
WON 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? YES.
IV. Ratio/Legal Basis
Section 4 of P.D. 1606, as amended by Section 2 of R.A. 7975 which took
effect on May 16, 1995, which was again amended on February 5, 1997 by
R.A. 8249, is the law that should be applied in the present case, the offense
having been allegedly committed on or about December 19, 1995 and the
Information having been filed on March 25, 2004.
The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is to be determined at the
time of the institution of the action, not at the time of the commission of the
offense. The exception contained in R.A. 7975, as well as R.A. 8249, where
it expressly provides that to determine jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan in
cases involving violations of R.A. No. 13379… is not applicable in the
PONENTE: Peralta, J
DIGEST MAKER: Stefi
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL 32 [August 6, 1991]

People v Sandiganbayan and Rolando Plaza People v Sandiganbayan and Rolando Plaza

present case as the offense involved herein is a violation of the Auditing
Code of the Philippines. Section 4a of PD 1606 provides:
Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. - The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction in all cases involving: Violations of Republic
Act No. 3019, as amended, other known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II,
Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one
or more of the accused are officials occupying the following
positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or
interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense: x x
x.
WHEREFORE, the Petition dated September 2, 2005 is hereby
GRANTED and the Resolution of the Sandiganyan (Third Division) dated
July 20, 2005 is hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. Let the case be
REMANDED to the Sandiganbayan for further proceedings.
VI. Notes
This case is very similar to the case of People v, Sandiganbayan and
Amante. Amante and Plaza were both members of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Toleso City, Cebu at the time pertinent ot this case. The only
difference is that, responded Amante failed to liquidate Php71,095 while
Plaza failed to liquidate Php33,000.

The present case falls under Section 4 (b) where other offenses and felonies
committed by public officials or employees in relation to their office are
involved where the said provision, contains no exceptions. What applies in
the present case is the general rule that jurisdiction of a court to try a
criminal case is to be determined at the times of the institution of the action,
not at the time of the commission of the offense. The present case having
been instituted on March 25, 2004, the provisions of R.A. 8249 shall
govern.

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.

V. Disposition

G.R. NO: 169044 PONENTE: Peralta, J

How jurisdiction is conferred and determined: The facts alleged in the complaint and the law in force at the commencement of DIGEST MAKER: Stefi
action determine the jurisdiction