JURISDICTION

20. LLORENTE vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

Facts:
Llorente, a municipal mayor was accused of violating RA 3019 in two information filed.
First, the petitioner together with his co-conspirators, seized the wooden boxes owned by Diamante
without any search and seizure warrant; and Second, the petitioner refuses to issue Mayor’s permit to
the factory owned by Diamante without sufficient justification after due demand and payment of
license fees were made. The petitioner averred that Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the
criminal cases against him because he receives salary less than that corresponding to Grade 27.
Issue:
WON Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over violations of RA 3019, as amended, against
municipal mayors.
Ruling:
Yes. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction.
RA 7975 provides that the Sandiganbayan has original exclusive jurisdiction over violations
of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act, Republic Act 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code, where one
or more of the principal 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:
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director or higher, otherwise
classified as Grade "27" and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989
(Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:
(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 panglungsod, city treasurers,
assessors, engineers, and other city department heads;
(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;
(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all other officials of higher rank;
(e) PNP chief superintendent and PNP officers of higher rank;
(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the
Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
(g) Presidents, directors, or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled
corporations, state universities or educational institutions of foundations.

There is no merit to petitioner's averment that the salary received by a public official dictates his
salary grade. "On the contrary, it is the official's grade that determines his or her salary, not the other
way around.
21. INDING vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts:
Inding, the petitioner, is a councilor of Dapitan and as such, while in the performance of his
official functions, faked buy-bust operations to enable him to claim from the coffers of the city
government as reimbursement for the alleged buy-bust operations. Sandiganbayan charged him in
violation of RA 3019. The petitioner alleged that Sandiganbayan lacks jurisdiction over the criminal
case because he is a member of Sangguniang Panlungsod with only a salary grade 25.
Issue:
WON Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over violations of RA 3019, as amended, against city
councilors with SG below 27?
Rulings:
Yes. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction.
RA 7975 provides that the Sandiganbayan has original exclusive jurisdiction over violations
of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, committed by officials in the executive branch with SG 27 or
higher, and the officials specifically enumerated in (a) to (g) of Section 4 a.(1) of P.D. No. 1606, as
amended by Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 7975, regardless of their salary grades, likewise fall within
the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. 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, otherwise classified as grade 27 and higher,
of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989."
22. JUDGE ESTEBAN VS. PEOPLE
Facts:
Judge Esteban, the petitioner, demanded from the complainant that she will be his girlfriend
and she must enter the room daily for a kiss as a condition to sign his permanent position as
bookbinder. However, he was rejected, as such, Judge Esteban grab the complainant, kiss her all over
her face and touch her right breast against her will and consent. Thus, information for acts of
lasciviousness was filed against him. The petitioner files a petition contending that Sandiganbayan
has no jurisdiction since it is not in relation to his office.
Issue:
WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the acts of lasciviousness filed against
petitioner.
Ruling:
Yes. The petition is bereft of merit.
Section 4 of PD No. 1606, as amended by RA 8249 provides that Sandiganbayan shall
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving Other offenses or felonies whether
simple or complexed with other crime committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in
subsection a of this section in relation to their office. Here, the petitioner, being a presiding judge is
vested with the power to recommend the appointment of the complainant as bookbinder. His
imposition of such conditions before extending such recommendation is no doubt that he used his
official position in commiting the acts complained of in the information. Hence, Sandiganbayan did
not gravely abuse its discretion amounting to lack or excess jurisdiction.
23. BARRIGA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts:
Barriga, the petitioner, is a municipal accountant and she was accused of both malversation of
funds and illegal use of public funds. She averred that the information failed to allege the intimate
relation over the crimes charged and her official duties, as well as, her position as municipal
accountant with salary grade of 24 does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Issue:
WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the crimes of malversation of funds and illegal
use of public funds.
Ruling:
Yes. The petition has no merit.
Rep. Act No. 8249, which amended Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606,
provides, inter alia, that the Sandiganbayan has original 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. There are two
classes of public office-related crimes under subparagraph (b) of Section 4 of Rep. Act No. 8249:
first, 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, in a legal sense, the offense
committed cannot exist without the office;  second, 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, through improper or irregular conduct.
24. BALABA vs. PEOPLE
Facts:
Balaba, the petitioner is an assistant municipal treasurer was charged of malversation of
funds. The trial court ruled that he is guilty. The petitioner, then filed his notice of appeal before the
CA. The CA dismissed the appeal for being improper since the Sandiganbayan has exclusive
appellate jurisdiction over the case.
Issue:
WON the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.
Ruling:
No. The CA did not err in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.
An error in designating the appellate court is not fatal to the appeal. However, the correction
in designating the proper appellate court should be made within the 15-day period to appeal. Once
made within the said period, the designation of the correct appellate court may be allowed even if the
records of the case are forwarded to the Court of Appeals. Otherwise, the second paragraph of
Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of court would apply. The second paragraph of Section 2, Rule 50 of
the Rules of Court reads that an appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be
transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright. Here, the petitioner sought
correction only after the expiration of the period.
25. MAGNO VS. PEOPLE
Facts:
Magno, the petitioner, is a public officer under NBI. He objected to the formal appearance
and authority of Atty. Sitoy as the private prosecutor in behalf of the office of Ombudsman pursuant
to RA 6770. RTC ruled in favor of Magno. Respondents elevated the case to CA and ruled in favor
of it.
Issue:
WON the CA has jurisdiction of over the RTC’s decision.
Ruling:
No. the CA has no jurisdiction over the RTC’s decision.
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments,
resolutions or orders of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction
or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided. Petition must be filed in the Sandiganbaayn since
the accused is a public official under NBI.
26. BILLEDO VS. JUDGE WAGAN
Facts:
Billledo et al., the petitioners, were charged before the MTC of Pasay with a violation of a
city ordinance by being caught in flagrante delicto drinking liquor in a public place. And the
corresponding civil case has been proceeded in RTC.
Issue:
WON the RTC has jurisdiction to try the civil case given the mandatory simultaneous
institution and joint determination of a civil liability with the criminal action and the express
prohibition to file the said civil action separately from the criminal action as provided for under
section 4 of republic act 8249?
Ruling:
Yes. The subject civil case does not fall within the purview of Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 as
the latter part of this provision contemplates only two (2) situations. These were correctly pointed out
by the public respondent as follows: First, a criminal action has been instituted before the
Sandiganbayan or the appropriate courts after the requisite preliminary investigation, and the
corresponding civil liability must be simultaneously instituted with it; and Second, the civil case,
filed ahead of the criminal case, is still pending upon the filing of the criminal action, in which case,
the civil case should be transferred to the court trying the criminal case for consolidation and joint
determination. Evidently, Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 finds no application in this case. No criminal
action has been filed before the Sandiganbayan or any appropriate court. Thus, there is no
appropriate court to which the subject civil case can be transferred or consolidated as mandated by
the said provision.
27. AMBIL VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts:
Ambil, an Eastern Samar Governor and Apelado, a provincial warden were found guilty
before the Sandiganbayan for violation of RA 3019. The two conspired then in ordering the release
of the criminally charged mayor.
Issue:
WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a suit where one of the 2 accused has a salary
grade classified to be cognizable before thw lower courts.
Ruling:
Yes. The sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the suit where one of the 2 accused held a
position with a classification of Salary grade 27. Only when none of the numerous accused occupies
a position with salary grade 27 or higher can exclusive jurisdiction befall in the lower courts. Here,
Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over Ambil and so as with Apelado for being a co-principal in the
perpetration of an offense.
28. PEOPLE VS. BELLO
Facts:
Graft charges was filed against the legal department head of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines-Retirement and Separation Benefit System.
Issue:
WON the Sandiganbayan erred in holding that it has no jurisdiction.
Ruling:
Yes, Sandiganbayan erred in holding that it has no jurisdiction. What is needed is that the
public officials mentioned by law must commit the offense described in Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019
while in the performance of official duties or in relation to the office being held. Here, the OMB
charged Bello of using his office as Legal Department Head to manipulate the documentation of
AFP-RSBS land acquisitions to the prejudice of the government.
29. DISINI VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts:
Office of the Ombudsman filed two information against Disini in the Sandiganbayan with
corruption of public officials and with violation of RA 3019. He is a private individual and his
criminal prosecution is intimately related to the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses.
Issue:
WON the court erred in assuming jurisdiction over the criminal case against the private
individual.
Ruling;
No. The court did not err in assuming jurisdiction. In case private individuals are charged as
co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officers or employees, including those
employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said
public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over
them. Hence, the Sandiganbayan has an exclusive and original jurisdiction over the offenses.
30. PEOPLE VS. HENRY GO
Facts:
The respondent Henry Go is a private individual and he conspired with the Secretary
of DOTC in unlawfully entering a concession agreement which is disadvantageous to the
government.
Issue:
WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the respondent even if the public
officer, with whom he was alleged to have conspired has died prior to the filing of
information.
Ruling:
Yes. The requirement before a private person may be indicted in Sandiganbayan of a
violation of RA 3019, is that private person must be alleged to have acted in conspiracy with
a public officer. The law, however, does not require that such person, must, in all instances,
be indicted together with the public officer.