Geduspan vs. People

The Sandiganbayan exercises jurisdiction over a manager of a government-owned or controlled corporation charged under RA 3019, notwithstanding that the position is classified below salary grade 27, because paragraph 1(g) of Section 4 of RA 8249 specifically includes such officials within the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction. It is the position held, not the salary grade, that determines jurisdiction in such cases.

Petitioner Marilyn C. Geduspan was the Regional Manager/Director of Region VI of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (Philhealth), a government-owned or controlled corporation created under RA 7875, the National Health Insurance Act of 1995. Her co-accused, Dr. Evangeline C. Farahmand, was a private individual serving as Chairman of the Board of Directors of Tiong Bi Medical Center, Tiong Bi, Inc. The jurisdictional framework governing the Sandiganbayan's authority over anti-grraft cases is set out in Section 4 of RA 8249, which enumerates the positions whose holders fall within the anti-graft court's original jurisdiction, including a specific inclusion for officers of GOCCs.

On July 11, 2002, an information docketed as Criminal Case No. 27525 was filed before the Sandiganbayan charging petitioner Marilyn C. Geduspan and Dr. Evangeline C. Farahmand with violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Geduspan was identified as Regional Manager/Director of Philhealth Regional Office VI in Iloilo City, while Farahmand was described as a private individual and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Tiong Bi Medical Center, Tiong Bi, Inc. in Bacolod City.

The information alleged that on or about November 27, 1999, and for some time thereafter, Geduspan, in connivance with Farahmand and with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, released claims for payments of patients confined at L.N. Memorial Hospital with Philhealth, accruing prior to January 1, 2000 and amounting to ₱91,954.64, to Tiong Bi Medical Center, Tiong Bi, Inc. The release was allegedly made despite a 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., stipulating that possession, operation, and management of the hospital would be turned over effective January 1, 2000, and that all collectibles or accounts receivable accruing prior to that date were due to West Negros College, Inc. The prosecution thus charged Geduspan with giving unwarranted benefits to Tiong Bi, Inc. to the damage and injury of West Negros College, Inc.

Both accused filed a joint motion to quash on July 29, 2002, contending that the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction over them because the principal accused, Geduspan, was a Regional Director of Philhealth, Region VI, a position classified under salary grade 26. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash in a resolution dated January 31, 2003, and subsequently denied the motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated May 9, 2003. Geduspan's appointment paper and notice of salary adjustment showed that she was appointed as Department Manager A of Philhealth with salary grade 26, though she was assigned at the Philhealth Regional Office VI as Regional Director/Manager.

• Lack of Jurisdiction: Petitioner argued that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over her person because her position as Regional Director/Manager of Philhealth Region VI was classified under salary grade 26, which fell below the salary grade 27 threshold prescribed by paragraphs (1) and (5) of Section 4 of RA 8249 for officials of the executive branch within the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction.
• Reliance on Cuyco Precedent: Petitioner anchored her request for a temporary restraining order on the alleged disregard by the respondent court of this Court's decision in Cuyco vs. Sandiganbayan, which she claimed was squarely applicable to her situation.

• Jurisdiction over GOCC Managers: Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a department manager of a government-owned or controlled corporation whose position is classified under salary grade 26, charged with violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
• Applicability of Cuyco Precedent: Whether the ruling in Cuyco vs. Sandiganbayan applies to the petitioner's case.

• Jurisdiction over GOCC Managers: Yes. The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over petitioner, because paragraph 1(g) of Section 4 of RA 8249 specifically includes "presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned and controlled corporations" within the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, regardless of salary grade.
• Applicability of Cuyco Precedent: No. Cuyco is not on all fours with the instant case because the accused therein was a Regional Director of the LTO—an agency not a GOCC—classified at salary grade 26, whereas petitioner held the position of Department Manager A of Philhealth, a GOCC, which falls under the specific inclusion of paragraph 1(g).

• Jurisdiction over GOCC Managers: The first part of Section 4(1) of RA 8249 covers officials of the executive branch occupying positions of regional director and higher, classified as grade 27 and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. However, the second part of the provision "specifically includes" other executive officials whose positions may not be of grade 27 or higher but who are by express provision of law placed under the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction. Paragraph 1(g) specifically enumerates "presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned and controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations." Petitioner held the position of Department Manager A of Philhealth, a GOCC created under RA 7875. Her appointment paper and notice of salary adjustment determined the classification of her position as Department Manager A, not Regional Director. It is of no moment that the position was classified as salary grade 26, because the specific inclusion in paragraph 1(g) operates independently of the salary grade threshold. The requisites for Sandiganbayan jurisdiction under RA 8249, as laid out in Lacson vs. Executive Secretary, were satisfied: (1) the offense charged is a violation of RA 3019; (2) the offender is a public official holding a position enumerated in paragraph a of Section 4—here, a manager of a GOCC; and (3) the offense was committed in relation to her office. Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over both her person and the subject matter of the case, as well as over her co-accused Farahmand, a private individual charged together with her.
• Applicability of Cuyco Precedent: In Cuyco, the accused was Regional Director of the LTO, Region IX, an office whose position of Regional Director was classified as Director II with salary grade 26 at the time of the commission of the crime in 1992. The LTO is not a government-owned or controlled corporation, so the specific inclusion in paragraph 1(g) did not apply. In contrast, petitioner held the position of Department Manager A of Philhealth, a GOCC, at the time of the commission of the offense. That position is among those enumerated in paragraph 1(g) of Section 4a of RA 8249. The factual and legal settings are therefore materially different, and Cuyco does not control.

• Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over GOCC officials — The Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction over violations of RA 3019 extends to officials occupying positions enumerated in Section 4 of RA 8249. While the general rule covers executive-branch officials classified at salary grade 27 and higher, paragraph 1(g) specifically includes "presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned and controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations" without regard to salary grade. The specific inclusion operates independently of the salary grade threshold. It is the position held, not the salary grade, that determines jurisdiction when the official is a manager of a GOCC.
• Requisites for Sandiganbayan jurisdiction under RA 8249 — As laid out in Lacson vs. Executive Secretary, the following must concur: (1) the offense committed is a violation of (a) RA 3019, (b) RA 1379, (c) Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, (d) Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, or (e) other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes; (2) the offender is a public official or employee holding any of the positions enumerated in paragraph a of Section 4; and (3) the offense committed is in relation to the office.

• "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." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi: the specific inclusion of GOCC managers in paragraph 1(g) operates independently of the salary grade 27 threshold, thereby vesting the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction regardless of the official's salary grade.
• "It is the position that petitioner holds, not her salary grade, that determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan." — This is the canonical formulation of the rule for GOCC officials, frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on Sandiganbayan jurisdiction.
• "A perusal of the aforequoted Section 4 of R.A. 8249 reveals that to fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, the following requisites must concur: (1) the offense committed is a violation of (a) R.A. 3019, as amended (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), (b) R.A. 1379 (the law on ill-gotten wealth), (c) Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, book II of the Revised Penal Code (the law on bribery), (d) Executive Order Nos. 1,2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986 (sequestration cases), or (e) other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes; (2) the offender committing the offenses in items (a), (b), (c) and (e) is a public official or employee holding any of the positions enumerated in paragraph a of section 4; and (3) the offense committed is in relation to the office." — This quotation, drawn from Lacson vs. Executive Secretary, sets out the three-part test for Sandiganbayan jurisdiction that the Court applied to confirm jurisdiction over petitioner.

• Cuyco vs. Sandiganbayan, 381 Phil. 906 (2000) — Distinguished. In that case, the accused was Regional Director of the LTO, classified as Director II with salary grade 26, and the Court ruled the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction. The case was distinguished because the LTO is not a GOCC, so the specific inclusion in paragraph 1(g) of Section 4 of RA 8249 did not apply.
• Lacson vs. Executive Secretary, 361 Phil. 251 (1999) — Followed. The Court applied the three-requisite test for Sandiganbayan jurisdiction under RA 8249 articulated in Lacson to confirm that all elements were satisfied in petitioner's case.

• Section 4, RA 8249 — Defines and enumerates the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over violations of RA 3019 and other anti-graft laws. Paragraph (1) covers officials of the executive branch occupying positions of regional director and higher, classified as grade 27 and higher, while paragraph 1(g) specifically includes "presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned and controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations." The Court applied paragraph 1(g) to hold that petitioner, as Department Manager A of Philhealth (a GOCC), fell within the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction notwithstanding her salary grade 26 classification.
• Section 3(e), RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — The substantive offense charged against petitioner and her co-accused, involving the giving of unwarranted benefits through evident bad faith and manifest partiality in the discharge of official functions.
• RA 7875 (National Health Insurance Act of 1995) — The law creating Philhealth as a government-owned or controlled corporation, establishing the institutional character of petitioner's employer that brought her within the scope of paragraph 1(g) of Section 4 of RA 8249.

Panganiban (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio-Morales, and Garcia, JJ., concurred.