People vs. Sandiganbayan

The Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over a Sangguniang Panlungsod member with Salary Grade 26 charged with an offense committed in relation to her office under Section 4(b) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, because the enumeration of public officials in Section 4(a)(1)(a) to (g) applies regardless of salary grade, and Section 4(b) contains no salary grade qualification for "other offenses or felonies" committed in relation to office.

Victoria Amante was a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Toledo City, Province of Cebu. The Sandiganbayan was created by P.D. No. 1486 on June 11, 1978, and its jurisdiction was subsequently amended by P.D. No. 1606 (December 10, 1978), P.D. No. 1861 (March 23, 1983), R.A. No. 7975 (March 30, 1995), and R.A. No. 8249 (February 5, 1997). Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, defines the Sandiganbayan's exclusive original jurisdiction, distinguishing between violations of specific anti-graft laws (Section 4(a)) and "other offenses or felonies" committed in relation to office (Section 4(b)).

Victoria Amante was a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Toledo City, Province of Cebu. On January 14, 1994, she obtained a cash advance in the amount of ₱71,095.00 under a disbursement voucher to defray seminar expenses of the Committee on Health and Environmental Protection, which she headed. As of December 19, 1995, or after almost two years, no liquidation had been made. On December 22, 1995, Toledo City Auditor Manolo V. Tulibao issued a demand letter requiring Amante to settle her unliquidated cash advance within seventy-two hours from receipt.

The Commission on Audit, on May 17, 1996, submitted an investigation report to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas (OMB-Visayas), recommending further investigation to determine whether charges could be filed under P.D. No. 1445. The OMB-Visayas issued a Resolution on September 30, 1999 recommending the filing of an Information for Malversation of Public Funds. The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), upon review, prepared a memorandum on April 6, 2001 finding probable cause.

On May 21, 2004, the OSP filed an Information with the Sandiganbayan charging Amante with violating Section 89 of P.D. No. 1445, alleging that she, a high-ranking public officer and member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, having obtained cash advances of ₱71,095.00 which she was duty-bound to liquidate, wilfully, unlawfully, and criminally failed to liquidate despite demands. Amante filed a Motion to Defer Arraignment and Motion for Reinvestigation, claiming she had already liquidated or refunded the unliquidated balance and that the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction because she occupied a position with Salary Grade 26, whereas Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 requires Grade 27 and higher. The OSP opposed, arguing that the settlement claim was a matter of defense and that the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction since Amante was a Sangguniang Panlungsod member enumerated under Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249.

The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the Inding ruling applied only to offenses under Section 4(a) — violations of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code — and that for offenses under Section 4(b), the general qualification of Salary Grade 27 applied. The Sandiganbayan reasoned that since Amante was charged with violation of the Auditing Code, an offense under Section 4(b), and held a Salary Grade 26 position, jurisdiction fell to the proper regional or municipal trial court.

• Application of Inding: Petitioner argued that Inding vs. Sandiganbayan did not categorically or implicitly confine the enumeration in Section 4(a)(1) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, exclusively to cases involving violations of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379, or Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code, and that the enumeration equally applies to offenses committed in relation to public office.
• Section 4(b) Coverage: The OSP reiterated that the enumeration of public officials in Section 4(a)(1)(a) to (g) should include their commission of other offenses in relation to office under Section 4(b), citing Esteban vs. Sandiganbayan for the proposition that an offense is committed in relation to office if it is "intimately connected" with the office and perpetrated while the offender was in the performance of official functions.

• Statutory Construction: Respondent Amante averred that Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, defines the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction by first enumerating exceptions to the general rule, and that the Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction only over (a) public officials with Salary Grade 27 and higher, or (b) public officials below Grade 27 whose positions are enumerated in Section 4(a)(1)(a) to (g) and whose offenses involve violations of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379, or Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code. For offenses other than these three statutes, the general rule requiring Salary Grade 27 applies.
• Jurisdiction Cannot Be Waived: Respondent cited the principle that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or law, cannot be fixed by the will of the parties, and cannot be acquired through or waived, enlarged, or diminished by any act or omission of the parties.

• Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan: Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a case involving a Sangguniang Panlungsod member where the crime charged is one committed in relation to office, but not for violation of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379, or any of the felonies mentioned in Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code.

• Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan: Yes. The Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over a Sangguniang Panlungsod member with Salary Grade 26 charged with violation of Section 89 of P.D. No. 1445 committed in relation to her office, pursuant to Section 4(b) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 8249, which contains no salary grade qualification for "other offenses or felonies" committed by the public officials enumerated in Section 4(a).

• Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan: The Court applied the general rule that jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is determined at the time of the institution of the action, not at the time of the commission of the offense. Since the Information was filed on May 21, 2004, R.A. No. 8249 governed. The Court examined Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, and found that Section 4(a) enumerates specific offenses — violations of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code — which require the accused to hold positions classified as Grade 27 and higher, with exceptions for those specifically enumerated in Section 4(a)(1)(a) to (g) regardless of salary grade. Section 4(b) covers "other offenses or felonies" committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) in relation to their office, and contains no salary grade qualification.

The Court rejected the Sandiganbayan's interpretation of Inding vs. Sandiganbayan. In Inding, the public official was a Sangguniang Panlungsod member with Salary Grade 25 charged with violation of R.A. No. 3019, and the Court's discussion focused on Section 4(a)(1), not Section 4(b). The Court clarified that a plain reading of Section 4(b) shows that public officials enumerated in Section 4(a) may be charged not only 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 Court cited Lacson vs. Executive Secretary, where it was held that the phrase "other offenses or felonies" is broad enough to include murder, provided it was committed in relation to the accused's official functions, and that what determines the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction is the official position or rank of the offender. The Court also cited Alarilla vs. Sandiganbayan, where a municipal mayor charged with grave threats was held to fall within the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction because the crime was intimately connected with his official functions.

Applying these principles, the Court found that the Information against Amante for violation of the Auditing Code alleged an offense committed in relation to her office, making her fall under Section 4(b). The Court distinguished Section 4(a) offenses, where public office is an essential element of the offense itself, from Section 4(b) offenses, where it is enough that the offense was committed in relation to the public official's office. The Court further held that Section 4(b) does not mention any qualification as to the public officials involved — it simply refers to "public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a)," which includes those with Salary Grade 27 and above, except those specifically enumerated. Applying the principle that words of a statute are interpreted in their natural, plain, and ordinary acceptation, the Court concluded that Amante, being a Sangguniang Panlungsod member at the time of the alleged commission of an offense in relation to her office, falls within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

• Offense committed in relation to office — An offense is committed in relation to office if the offense cannot exist without the office, such that the office is a constituent element of the crime, or if the offense is intimately connected with the accused's office and was perpetrated while the accused was in the performance, though improper or irregular, of official functions, with no personal motive to commit the crime, and the accused would not have committed it had he not held the office. The Court applied this doctrine to find that Amante's alleged failure to liquidate her cash advance was committed in relation to her office as Sangguniang Panlungsod member, bringing her within Section 4(b) jurisdiction.
• Determination of jurisdiction at the time of institution of action — Jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is determined at the time of the institution of the action, not at the time of the commission of the offense. The Court applied this rule to hold that R.A. No. 8249, in effect at the time the Information was filed on May 21, 2004, governed the determination of the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction.
• Plain meaning rule of statutory construction — Words of a statute are interpreted in their natural, plain, and ordinary acceptation and signification, unless it is evident that the legislature intended a technical or special legal meaning. The Court applied this principle to hold that Section 4(b) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, contains no salary grade qualification and plainly refers to all public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a).

• "A simple analysis after a plain reading of the above provision shows that those public officials enumerated in Section 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." — This passage articulates the Court's core interpretation of Section 4(b), holding that the enumeration of officials in Section 4(a) applies to offenses under Section 4(b) without salary grade restriction.
• "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." — Quoted from Lacson v. Executive Secretary, this passage establishes that the determinative factor for Section 4(b) jurisdiction is the offender's position or rank, not the nature of the offense.
• "Moreover, it is beyond clarity that the same provision 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." — This passage emphasizes the absence of a salary grade qualification in Section 4(b), which was central to the Court's ruling that Amante fell within the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction.

• Inding vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 143047, July 14, 2004, 434 SCRA 388 — Distinguished. The Court clarified that Inding, which involved a Sangguniang Panlungsod member with Salary Grade 25 charged with violation of R.A. No. 3019, focused on Section 4(a)(1) and did not constrict the enumeration to offenses under Section 4(a) exclusively.
• Serana vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162059, January 22, 2008, 542 SCRA 224 — Cited for the historical background of the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, from its creation by P.D. No. 1486 through its amendments by P.D. No. 1606, P.D. No. 1861, R.A. No. 7975, and R.A. No. 8249.
• Lacson vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 128096, January 20, 1999, 301 SCRA 298 — Followed. The Court relied on this case for the proposition that "other offenses or felonies" under Section 4(b) is broad enough to include any crime, provided it was committed in relation to the accused's official functions, and that what determines jurisdiction is the official position or rank of the offender.
• Alarilla vs. Sandiganbayan, 393 Phil. 143 (2000) — Followed. Cited for the ruling that a municipal mayor charged with grave threats committed during a public hearing fell within the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction because the crime was intimately connected with his official functions.
• Esteban vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 146646-49, March 11, 2005, 453 SCRA 236 — Cited for the definition of an offense committed in relation to office as one "intimately connected" with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his official functions.
• Rodriguez vs. Sandiganbayan, 468 Phil. 374 (2004) — Cited for the principle that an offense is committed in relation to office when it is intimately connected with the office and perpetrated while the accused was in the performance, though improper or irregular, of official functions.
• Sanchez vs. Demetriou, 227 SCRA 627 (1993) — Cited for the elaboration of the scope of "offense committed in relation to office," referring to the principles in Montilla vs. Hilario and People vs. Montejo.
• Montilla vs. Hilario, 90 Phil 49 (1951) — Cited for the principle that an offense may be considered committed in relation to office if the offense cannot exist without the office, such that the office is a constituent element of the crime.
• People vs. Montejo, 108 Phil 613 (1960) — Cited for the exception that although public office is not an element of a crime in the abstract, the facts may show that the offense is intimately connected with the accused's office and perpetrated while in the performance of official functions.
• Cunanan vs. Arceo, G.R. No. 116615, March 1, 1995, 242 SCRA 88 — Cited for the exposition of the meaning of offenses deemed committed in relation to office.
• Subido, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 122641, January 20, 1997, 266 SCRA 379 — Cited for the rule that jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is determined at the time of the institution of the action, not at the time of the commission of the offense.
• Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan, 479 Phil. 265 (2004) — Cited for the plain meaning rule of statutory construction.
• Municipality of Sogod vs. Rosal, G.R. No. L-38204, September 24, 1991, 201 SCRA 632 — Cited by respondent for the principle that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or law and cannot be waived or enlarged by the parties.

• Section 4, P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 8249 — The provision defining the Sandiganbayan's original jurisdiction. The Court interpreted Section 4(a) as enumerating specific offenses (violations of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code) and Section 4(b) as covering "other offenses or felonies" committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) in relation to their office, with no salary grade qualification in Section 4(b).
• Section 4(a)(1)(b), P.D. No. 1606, as amended — The provision specifically enumerating "city mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads" as officials within the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction regardless of salary grade. The Court applied this to Amante as a Sangguniang Panlungsod member.
• Section 89, P.D. No. 1445 (The Auditing Code of the Philippines) — The offense charged against Amante for failure to liquidate her cash advance. The Court held that this offense, committed in relation to her office, fell under Section 4(b) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended.
• Section 4, R.A. No. 8249 — The amendatory law governing the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction at the time the Information was filed on May 21, 2004. The Court applied this provision pursuant to the rule that jurisdiction is determined at the time of the institution of the action.

• Carpio Morales, J. (designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago per Special Order No. 679 dated August 3, 2009)
• Chico-Nazario, J. (Acting Chairperson, per Special Order No. 678 dated August 3, 2009)
• Velasco, Jr., J.
• Nachura, J.