Macalino vs. Sandiganbayan

An employee of a government-owned or controlled corporation that has no original charter and was incorporated under the general law on corporations is not a public officer within the coverage of R.A. No. 3019 and is beyond the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan.

Felicito S. Macalino was Assistant Manager of the Treasury Division and Head of the Loans Administration and Insurance Section of the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC), formerly the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP). PNCC was incorporated under the general law on corporations and has no original charter. Resolution of the dispute required construction of Article XI, Sections 12 and 13, and Article IX-B, Section 2(1) of the 1987 Constitution, which limit the Ombudsman's authority and the civil service to government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, in contrast to the broader 1973 Constitution.

Felicito S. Macalino was Assistant Manager of the Treasury Division and Head of the Loans Administration and Insurance Section of the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC), a government-controlled corporation with offices at EDSA corner Reliance Street, Mandaluyong. His wife, Liwayway S. Tan, was the owner of Wacker Marketing. The informations alleged that Macalino, taking advantage of his position and in conspiracy with his wife, diverted PNCC funds intended for other payees to Wacker Marketing.

According to the prosecution, on or about March 15, 1989, Macalino prepared an application with the Philippine National Bank, Buendia Branch, for a demand draft of P983,682.11 in favor of Bankers Trust Company, but superimposed the name Wacker Marketing as payee and likewise inserted into PNCC's letter to PNB the words payable to Wacker Marketing. As a result, PNB Buendia issued nineteen demand drafts for P50,000.00 each and another for P33,682.11, all payable to Wacker Marketing, which were delivered to Macalino. Tan thereafter exchanged them at PNB Balanga Branch for checks and deposited them into Account No. 0042-0282-6 of Wacker Marketing at Philtrust Cubao, causing damage to PNCC of P983,682.11.

Thereafter, on or about April 4, 1990, after receiving Check Voucher No. 04-422-90 and Check No. 552312 for P2,250,000.00 payable to International Corporate Bank (Interbank) as partial payment of PNCC's sinking fund, Macalino allegedly altered the payee to Wacker Marketing and falsified the schedule of check disbursements sent to PNB Buendia. Tan deposited the check into the same Wacker Marketing account, and Wacker Marketing subsequently issued Philtrust Check No. 148039 for P100,000.00 in favor of Macalino. The felony was not consummated because PNB Buendia ordered dishonor of Check No. 552312 after noting the alteration and erasures.

Upon arraignment on November 9, 1992, petitioner pleaded not guilty and trial proceeded. During the initial presentation of evidence for the defense, petitioner challenged the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction over him as a non-public officer. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to dismiss, prompting the certiorari petition.

• Public Officer Status and Jurisdiction: Petitioner argued that he is not a public officer within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan because the PNCC, formerly the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines, is not a government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter, having been incorporated under the general law on corporations, and thus its employees fall outside R.A. No. 3019, as amended.

• Jurisdiction and Public Officer Status: Respondent countered that the Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over petitioner as a public officer, opposing the motion to dismiss and relying on PNCC vs. Court of Appeals, Jaballas vs. CDCP, and CDCP vs. Leogardo, Jr. to support coverage of PNCC employees.

• Public Officer Status: Whether petitioner, an employee of the PNCC, is a public officer within the coverage of R.A. No. 3019, as amended.
• Jurisdiction of Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan: Whether the Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over petitioner and the criminal cases against him and his wife.

• Public Officer Status: No. An employee of PNCC, which has no original charter, is not a public officer within the coverage of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, under the 1987 Constitution.
• Jurisdiction of Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan: No. Absent a public officer charged with an offense within Sandiganbayan jurisdiction, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over petitioner, a private individual, requiring dismissal of both cases.

• Public Officer Status: Under Article XI, Sections 12 and 13 of the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman's authority over government-owned or controlled corporations is limited to those with original charters, and Article IX-B, Section 2(1) similarly limits the civil service to such corporations, a limitation reiterated in Section 15 of R.A. No. 6770. Because PNCC was incorporated under the general law on corporations and has no original charter, its employee inevitably falls outside R.A. No. 3019. The cases cited by the prosecution were inapplicable, having been decided under the 1973 Constitution which included corporations owned or controlled by the government though organized under the general corporation law, a category excluded by the 1987 Constitution.
• Jurisdiction of Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan: Jurisdiction over a criminal case is determined by the law in force at the institution of the action, here in 1992 for crimes committed in 1989 and 1990, hence governed by the 1987 Constitution. Since petitioner was thus a private individual, Sandiganbayan jurisdiction could attach only if he were charged as co-principal, accomplice, or accessory of a public officer charged with a crime within Sandiganbayan jurisdiction, which was not the case. Dismissal of both cases against petitioner and his wife was therefore required.

• Public officer under the 1987 Constitution for Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan jurisdiction — Only officials and employees of the Government, its subdivisions, agencies, instrumentalities, and government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters are public officers within the Ombudsman's and Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction; employees of corporations incorporated under the general law without an original charter, such as PNCC, are private individuals. Applied to hold that petitioner, a PNCC employee, was not a public officer under R.A. No. 3019.
• Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over private individuals — The only instance when the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a private individual is when the complaint charges him either as a co-principal, accomplice or accessory of a public officer who has been charged with a crime within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Applied to negate jurisdiction because no such public-officer principal was charged.
• Time of determination of criminal jurisdiction — The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is determined by the law in force at the institution of the action. Applied to govern the 1992 filings by the 1987 Constitution rather than the 1973 Constitution regime.

• "Inasmuch as the PNCC has no original charter as it was incorporated under the general law on corporations, it follows inevitably that petitioner is not a public officer within the coverage of R. A. No. 3019, as amended." — States the ratio decidendi linking PNCC's lack of original charter to petitioner's private-individual status.
• "The only instance when the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a private individual is when the complaint charges him either as a co-principal, accomplice or accessory of a public officer who has been charged with a crime within the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan." — Defines the narrow exception for Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over private persons, found inapplicable here.
• "It is well-settled that the jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is determined by the law in force at the institution of the action." — Supplies the temporal rule that subjected the 1992 prosecutions for 1989 and 1990 acts to the 1987 Constitution.

• Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan, 335 Phil. 1202, 1212 (1997) — Followed as authority for the rule that Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over a private individual exists only when charged as co-principal, accomplice, or accessory of a public officer charged with a Sandiganbayan offense.
• Alarilla vs. Sandiganbayan, 338 SCRA 485, 496 (2000) — Followed as authority that criminal jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the institution of the action.
• PNCC vs. Court of Appeals, 228 SCRA 565 (1993); Jaballas vs. CDCP, 165 SCRA 716 (1988); and CDCP vs. Leogardo, Jr., 125 SCRA 863 (1983) — Distinguished as inapplicable because decided under the 1973 Constitution, which covered employees of government-owned or controlled corporations even without original charters, unlike the 1987 Constitution.

• Section 2(b), R.A. No. 3019, as amended — Defines public officer to include officials and employees receiving compensation from the government; construed in light of the Constitution to exclude employees of corporations without original charters.
• Article XI, Sections 12 and 13, 1987 Constitution — Provide for the Ombudsman's power over public officials or employees and authority to direct officers of government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters; applied to exclude PNCC employees from Ombudsman coverage.
• Article IX-B, Section 2(1), 1987 Constitution — Provides that the civil service embraces government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters; applied to confirm the constitutional exclusion of PNCC.
• Section 15, R.A. No. 6770 — Reiterates the Ombudsman's powers over officers of the Government and government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters; applied consistently with the constitutional limitation.

Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.