People vs. Sandiganbayan Third Division

8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 630
Note.—The Philippine Overseas Employment

Administration (POEA) Contract, of which the parties are
both signatories, is the law between them and as such, its
provisions bind both of them. (Magsaysay Maritime Corp.
vs. Velasquez, 571 SCRA 239 [2008])
——o0o——
G.R. No. 169004. September 15, 2010.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) and ROLANDO
PLAZA, respondents.
Criminal Procedure; Sandiganbayan; Jurisdiction; 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.—Like in the earlier case, the present case definitely 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 exception.
Therefore, 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.
Same; Same; Same; 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; 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.—The above law is clear as to
the composition of
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017420f2b7d9efcb018d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/16
* SECOND DIVISION.
489
VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 489
People vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)
the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Under Section 4

(a), 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.
Same; Same; Same; The Inding case did not categorically nor
implicitly constrict or confine the application of the enumeration
provided for under Section 4 (a) (1) of Presidential Decree No.
1606, as amended, exclusively to cases where the offense charged is
either a violation of Republic Act No. 3019, Republic Act No. 1379
or Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code.—As
to the inapplicability of the Inding case wherein it was ruled that
the officials enumerated in (a) to (g) of Section 4 (a) (1) of P.D.

1606, as amended, are included within the original jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan regardless of salary grade and which the
Sandiganbayan relied upon
491
VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 491
in its assailed Resolution, this Court enunciated, still in the

earlier case of People v. Sandiganbayan and Amante, 597 SCRA
49 (2009), that the Inding case did not categorically nor
implicitly constrict or confine the application of the
enumeration provided for under Section 4 (a) (1) of P.D.
1606, as amended, exclusively to cases where the offense
charged is either a violation of R.A. 3019, R.A. 1379 or
Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a resolution of the

Sandiganbayan (Third Division).
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Oswaldo C. Santos for private respondent.
PERALTA, J.:
For this Court’s resolution is a petition1 dated
September 2, 2005 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court that
seeks to reverse and set aside the Resolution2 of the
Sandiganbayan (Third Division), dated July 20, 2005,
dismissing Criminal Case No. 27988, entitled People of the
Philippines v. Rolando Plaza for lack of jurisdiction.
The facts follow.
Respondent Rolando Plaza, a member of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod of Toledo City, Cebu, at the time
relevant to this case, with salary grade 25, had been
charged in the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 89
of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1445, or The Auditing
Code of the Philippines for his failure to liquidate the cash
advances he received on December 19, 1995 in the amount
of Thirty-Three Thousand Pesos (P33,000.00). The
Information reads:
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 28-55.

2 Penned by Associate Justice Godofredo L. Legaspi, ret. (Chairperson),
with Associate Justices Efren N. De La Cruz and Norberto Y. Geraldez
(members), (concurring), id., at pp. 13-25.
492
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

“That on or about December 19, 1995, and for sometime prior

or subsequent thereto at Toledo City, Province of Cebu,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused ROLANDO PLAZA, a high-ranking
public officer, being a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of
Toledo City, and committing the offense, in relation to office,
having obtained cash advances from the City Government of
Toledo in the total amount of THIRTY THREE THOUSAND
PESOS (P33,000.00), Philippine Currency, which he received by
reason of his office, for which he is duty bound to liquidate the
same within the period required by law, with deliberate intent
and intent to gain, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
criminally fail to liquidate said cash advances of P33,000.00,
Philippine Currency, despite demands to the damage and
prejudice of the government in the aforesaid amount.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Thereafter, respondent Plaza filed a Motion to Dismiss3

dated April 7, 2005 with the Sandiganbayan, to which the
latter issued an Order4 dated April 12, 2005 directing
petitioner to submit its comment. Petitioner filed its
Opposition5 to the Motion to Dismiss on April 19, 2005.
Eventually, the Sandiganbayan promulgated its
6
Resolution on July 20, 2005 dismissing the case for lack of
jurisdiction, without prejudice to its filing before the proper
court. The dispositive portion of the said Resolution
provides:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant case is

hereby ordered dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice
to its filing in the proper court.
SO ORDERED.”
Thus, the present petition.
_______________
3 Rollo, pp. 74-76.

4 Id., at p. 78.
5 Id., at pp. 80-85.
6 Id., at pp. 13-25.
493
VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 493

Petitioner contends that the Sandiganbayan has

criminal jurisdiction over cases involving public officials
and employees enumerated under Section 4 (a) (1) of P.D.
1606, (as amended by Republic Act [R.A.] Nos. 7975 and
8249), 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 office. Furthermore, petitioner questioned the
Sandiganbayan’s appreciation of this Court’s decision in
Inding v. Sandiganbayan,7 claiming that the Inding case
did not categorically nor implicitly constrict or confine the
application of the enumeration provided for under Section 4
(a) (1) of P.D. 1606, as amended, exclusively to cases where
the offense charged is either a violation of R.A. 3019, R.A.
1379 or Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised
Penal Code. Petitioner adds that the enumeration in
Section 4 (a) (1) of P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. 7975 and
R.A. 8249, which was made applicable to cases concerning
violations of R.A. 3019, R.A. 1379 and Chapter II, Section
2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code, equally applies to
offenses committed in relation to public office.
In his Comment8 dated November 30, 2005, respondent
Plaza argued that, as phrased in Section 4 of P.D. 1606, as
amended, it is apparent that the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan was defined first, while the exceptions to
the general rule are provided in the rest of the paragraph
and sub-paragraphs of Section 4; hence, the
Sandiganbayan was right in ruling that it 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 P. D. 1606, as
amended and his offense involves a violation of R.A.
_______________
7 478 Phil. 506; 434 SCRA 388 (2004).

8 Rollo, pp. 91-98.
494

3019, R.A. 1379 and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the
Revised Penal Code; and (c) if the indictment involves
offenses or felonies other than the three aforementioned
statutes, 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.
In a nutshell, the core issue raised in the petition is
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.
This Court has already resolved the above issue in the
affirmative. People v. Sandiganbayan and Amante9 is a
case with uncanny similarities to the present one. In fact,
the respondent in the earlier case, Victoria Amante and
herein respondent Plaza were both members of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod of Toledo City, Cebu at the time
pertinent to this case. The only difference is that,
respondent Amante failed to liquidate the amount of
Seventy-One Thousand Ninety-Five Pesos (P71,095.00)
while respondent Plaza failed to liquidate the amount of
Thirty-Three Thousand Pesos (P33,000.00).
In ruling that 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, this Court cited the case
of Serana v. Sandiganbayan, et al.10 as a background on
the conferment of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, thus:
“x x x The Sandiganbayan was created by P.D. No. 1486,

promulgated by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos on June 11,
1978. It was promulgated to attain the highest norms of official
conduct required of public officers and employees, based on the
concept that public officers and employees shall serve with the
highest degree of respon-
_______________
9 G.R. No. 167304, August 25, 2009, 597 SCRA 49.

10 G.R. No. 162059, January 22, 2008, 542 SCRA 238-240.
495
VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 495
sibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency and shall remain at all

times accountable to the people.11
P.D. No. 1486 was, in turn, amended by P.D. No. 1606 which was
promulgated on December 10, 1978. P.D. No. 1606 expanded the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.12
_______________
11 Id., citing Presidential Decree No. 1486.

12 Id., citing Section 4. Jurisdiction.—The Sandiganbayan shall have
jurisdiction over:
(a) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise, known as the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and Republic Act No. 1379;
(b) Crimes committed by public officers and employees including those
employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, embraced in Title VII
of the Revised Penal Code, whether simple or complexed with other crimes; and
(c) Other crimes or offenses committed by public officers or employees, including
those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, in relation to
their office.
The jurisdiction herein conferred shall be original and exclusive if the offense
charged is punishable by a penalty higher than prision correccional, or its
equivalent, except as herein provided; in other offenses, it shall be concurrent with
the regular courts.
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.
Where an accused is tried for any of the above offenses and the evidence is
insufficient to establish the offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted and
sentenced for the offense proved, included in that which is charged.
Any provision of law or the Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the
criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability
arising from the offense charged shall, at all times, be simultaneously instituted
with, and jointly determined in the same proceeding by, the Sandiganbayan, the
filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of
the civil action, and no right to reserve the filing of such action shall be recognized;
Provided, however, that, in cases within
496

P.D. No. 1606 was later amended by P.D. No. 1861 on March
23, 1983, further altering the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction. R.A.
No. 7975 approved on March 30, 1995 made succeeding
amendments to P.D. No. 1606, which was again amended on
February 5, 1997 by R.A. No. 8249. Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249

further modified the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. x x x.”
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.
As extensively explained in the earlier mentioned case,
“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.13 The exception contained
in R.A. 7975, as well as R.A. 8249, where it expressly provides that
to determine the jurisdiction of the
_______________
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, where the civil action had
therefore been filed separately with a regular court but judgment therein
has not yet been rendered and the criminal case is hereafter filed with the
Sandiganbayan, said civil action shall be transferred to the
Sandiganbayan for consolidation and joint determination with the
criminal action, otherwise, the criminal action may no longer be filed with
the Sandiganbayan, its exclusive jurisdiction over the same
notwithstanding, but may be filed and prosecuted only in the regular
courts of competent jurisdiction; Provided, further, that, in cases within
the concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and the regular courts,
where either the criminal or civil action is first filed with the regular
courts, the corresponding civil or criminal action, as the case may be, shall
only be filed with the regular courts of competent jurisdiction.
Excepted from the foregoing provisions, during martial law, are

criminal cases against officers and members of the armed forces in the
active service.
13 People v. Sandiganbayan and Amante, supra note 9, citing Subido,
Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 266 SCRA 379 (1996).
497
VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 497

Sandiganbayan in cases involving violations of R.A. No. 3019, as

amended, R.A. No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the
Revised Penal Code is not applicable in the present case as the
offense involved herein is a violation of The Auditing Code of the
Philippines.
The last clause of the opening sentence of paragraph (a) of the said
two provisions states:
Sec. 4. Jurisdiction.—The Sandiganbayan shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
A. 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.”14
Like in the earlier case, the present case definitely 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 exception. Therefore, 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. P.D. 1606, as
amended by R.A. 8249 states that:
“Sec. 4. Jurisdiction.—The Sandiganbayan shall exercise original

jurisdiction in all cases involving:
A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise
known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No.
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,
_______________
14 Emphasis supplied.
498

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 and 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 city department heads;
(b) City mayors, vice mayors, members of the
sangguniang panlungsod, 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 officers 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 or foundations;
(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as
Grade “27” and up under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989;
(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution;
(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions,
without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and
(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade
“27” and higher under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989.
499
VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 499

B. Other offenses or felonies, whether simple or complexed with

other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned
in subsection (a) of this section in relation to their office.
C. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with
Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A.
Again, the earlier case interpreted the above provisions,

thus:
“The above law is clear as to the composition of the original

jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Under Section 4 (a), 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 men-
500

tioned in subsection (a) in relation to their office also fall

under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.”15
Clearly, as decided in the earlier case and by simple

application of the pertinent provisions of the law,
respondent Plaza, a member of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod during the alleged commission of an offense in
relation to his office, necessarily falls within the original
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Finally, as to the inapplicability of the Inding16 case
wherein it was ruled that the officials enumerated in (a) to
(g) of Section 4 (a) (1) of P.D. 1606, as amended, are
included within the original jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan regardless of salary grade and which the
Sandiganbayan relied upon in its assailed Resolution, this
Court enunciated, still in the earlier case of People v.
Sandiganbayan and Amante,17 that the Inding case did
not categorically nor implicitly constrict or confine
the application of the enumeration provided for

under Section 4 (a) (1) of P.D. 1606, as amended,
exclusively to cases where the offense charged is
either a violation of R.A. 3019, R.A. 1379 or Chapter
II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code. As
thoroughly discussed:
“x x x In the Inding case, the public official involved was a

member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod with Salary Grade 25
and was charged with violation of R.A. No. 3019. In ruling that
the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the said public official,
this Court concentrated its disquisition on the provisions
contained in Section 4 (a) (1) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, where
the offenses involved are specifically enumerated and not on
Section 4 (b) where offenses or felonies involved are those that are
in relation to the public officials’ office. Section 4 (b) of P.D. No.
1606, as amended, provides that:
_______________
15 People v. Sandiganbayan and Amante, supra note 9, at pp. 59-60. (Emphasis

supplied.)
16 Supra note 7.
17 Supra note 9.
501
VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 501

b. Other offenses or felonies committed by public

officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) of this
section in relation to their office.
A simple analysis after a plain reading of the above provision
shows that 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 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. This Court had ruled
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.18 Thus, in the case of Lacson v. Executive Secretary, et
al..,19 where the crime involved was murder, this Court held that:
The phrase “other offenses or felonies” is too broad as to
include the crime of murder, provided it was committed in
relation to the accused’s official functions. Thus, under said
paragraph b, what determines the Sandiganbayan’s
jurisdiction is the official position or rank of the offender—
that is, whether he is one of those public officers or
employees enumerated in paragraph a of Section 4. x x x
Also, in the case Alarilla v. Sandiganbayan,20 where the public
official was charged with grave threats, this Court ruled:
_______________
18 Rodriguez, et al. v. Sandiganbayan, et al., 468 Phil. 374, 387; 424 SCRA 236,
248 (2004), citing People v. Montejo, 108 Phil. 613 (1960).
19 G.R. No. 128096, January 20, 1999, 301 SCRA 298.
20 G.R. No. 136806, August 22, 2000, 338 SCRA 498.
502

x x x In the case at bar, the amended information

contained allegations that the accused, petitioner herein,
took advantage of his official functions as municipal mayor
of Meycauayan, Bulacan when he committed the crime of
grave threats as defined in Article 282 of the Revised Penal
Code against complainant Simeon G. Legaspi, a municipal
councilor. The Office of the Special Prosecutor charged
petitioner with aiming a gun at and threatening to kill
Legaspi during a public hearing, after the latter had
rendered a privilege speech critical of petitioner’s
administration. Clearly, based on such allegations, the
crime charged is intimately connected with the discharge of
petitioner’s official functions. This was elaborated upon by
public respondent in its April 25, 1997 resolution wherein it
held that the “accused was performing his official duty as
municipal mayor when he attended said public hearing” and
that “accused’s violent act was precipitated by
complainant’s criticism of his administration as the mayor
or chief executive of the municipality, during the latter’s
privilege speech. It was his response to private
complainant’s attack to his office. If he was not the mayor,
he would not have been irritated or angered by whatever
private complainant might have said during said privilege
speech.” Thus, based on the allegations in the information,
the Sandiganbayan correctly assumed jurisdiction over the

case.
Proceeding from the above rulings of this Court, a close reading
of the Information filed against respondent Amante for violation
of The Auditing Code of the Philippines reveals that the said
offense was committed in relation to her office, making her fall
under Section 4 (b) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended.
According to the assailed Resolution of the Sandiganbayan, if
the intention of the law had been to extend the application of the
exceptions to the other cases over which the Sandiganbayan could
assert jurisdiction, then there would have been no need to
distinguish between violations of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379 or
Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code on the
one hand, and other offenses or felonies committed by public
officials and employees in relation to their office on the other. The
said reasoning is misleading because a distinction apparently
exists. 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,
503
VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 503

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 expounding the meaning of offenses deemed to have
been committed in relation to office, this Court held:
In Sanchez v. Demetriou [227 SCRA 627 (1993)], the
Court elaborated on the scope and reach of the term “offense
committed in relation to [an accused’s] office” by referring to
the principle laid down in Montilla v. Hilario [90 Phil. 49
(1951)], and to an exception to that principle which was
recognized in People v. Montejo [108 Phil 613 (1960)]. The
principle set out in Montilla v. Hilario is that an offense
may be considered as committed in relation to the accused’s
office if “the offense cannot exist without the office” such
that “the office [is] a constituent element of the crime x x x.”
In People v. Montejo, the Court, through Chief Justice
Concepcion, said that “although public office is not an
element of the crime of murder in [the] abstract,” the facts
in a particular case may show that
x x x the offense therein charged is intimately connected
with [the accused’s] respective offices and was perpetrated
while they were in the performance, though improper or
irregular, of their official functions. Indeed, [the accused]
had no personal motive to commit the crime and they would

not have committed it had they not held their aforesaid
offices. x x x”21
Moreover, it is beyond clarity that the same provisions of
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,22 unless
it is evident that the legislature intended a technical or special
legal meaning to those
_______________
21 Cunanan v. Arceo, G.R. No. 116615, March 1, 1995, 242 SCRA 88.
22 Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, 479 Phil. 265, 287; 435 SCRA 371, 387 (2004),
citing Mustang Lumber, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 430, 448 (1996).
504

words.23 The intention of the lawmakers—who are, ordinarily,

untrained philologists and lexicographers—to use statutory
phraseology in such a manner is always presumed.” (Italics
supplied.)24
With the resolution of the present case and the earlier

case of People v. Sandiganbayan and Amante,25 the issue
as to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan has now
attained clarity.
WHEREFORE, the Petition dated September 2, 2005 is
hereby GRANTED and the Resolution of the
Sandiganbayan (Third Division) dated July 20, 2005 is
hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. Let the case be
REMANDED to the Sandiganbayan for further
proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr.,** Bersamin** and

Abad, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, resolution nullified and set aside.
Note.—It is basic that the jurisdiction of a court is

determined both by the law in force at the time of the
commencement of the action and by the allegations in the
Complaint or Information. (People vs. Court of Appeals

(12th Division), 545 SCRA 52 [2008])
——o0o——
_______________
23 Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Eastern

Telecommunications Phil., Inc., G.R. No. 94374, August 27, 1992, 213
SCRA 16, 26.
24 People v. Sandiganbayan and Amante, supra note 9, at pp. 62-65,
citing Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, et al., supra note 22, citing Estrada
v. Sandiganbayan, 421 Phil. 443; 369 SCRA 394 (2001).
25 Supra note 9.
** Designated additional members in lieu of Associate Justices Antonio
Eduardo B. Nachura and Jose Catral Mendoza, who are on official leave
per Special Order Nos. 883 and 886, respectively, both dated September 1,
2010.
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

People vs. Sandiganbayan Third Division

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Sandiganbayan Third Division

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Sandiganbayan Third Division

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 630

Note.—The Philippine Overseas Employment

G.R. No. 169004. September 15, 2010.*

Criminal Procedure; Sandiganbayan; Jurisdiction; What

VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 489

People vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)

the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Under Section 4

the officials enumerated in (a) to (g) of Section 4 (a) (1) of P.D.

VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 491

People vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)

in its assailed Resolution, this Court enunciated, still in the

PETITION for review on certiorari of a resolution of the

1 Rollo, pp. 28-55.

(members), (concurring), id., at pp. 13-25.

492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

“That on or about December 19, 1995, and for sometime prior

Thereafter, respondent Plaza filed a Motion to Dismiss3

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant case is

Thus, the present petition.

3 Rollo, pp. 74-76.

VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 493

Petitioner contends that the Sandiganbayan has

7 478 Phil. 506; 434 SCRA 388 (2004).

494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

“x x x The Sandiganbayan was created by P.D. No. 1486,

9 G.R. No. 167304, August 25, 2009, 597 SCRA 49.

VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 495

People vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)

sibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency and shall remain at all

11 Id., citing Presidential Decree No. 1486.

496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

February 5, 1997 by R.A. No. 8249. Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249

Section 4 of P.D. 1606, as amended by Section 2 of R.A.

“The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is to be

Excepted from the foregoing provisions, during martial law, are

VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 497

Sandiganbayan in cases involving violations of R.A. No. 3019, as

Like in the earlier case, the present case definitely falls

“Sec. 4. Jurisdiction.—The Sandiganbayan shall exercise original

498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:

(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of

VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 499

B. Other offenses or felonies, whether simple or complexed with

Again, the earlier case interpreted the above provisions,

“The above law is clear as to the composition of the original

latter must be committed by, among others, officials of the

500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

tioned in subsection (a) in relation to their office also fall

Clearly, as decided in the earlier case and by simple

the application of the enumeration provided for

“x x x In the Inding case, the public official involved was a

15 People v. Sandiganbayan and Amante, supra note 9, at pp. 59-60. (Emphasis

VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 501

b. Other offenses or felonies committed by public

been indicted for “an offense committed in relation” to his

502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

x x x In the case at bar, the amended information

the Sandiganbayan correctly assumed jurisdiction over the

Carpio (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr., Bersamin and