Tan vs. People of the Philippines

The Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over public officials occupying positions classified as Salary Grade 26 and below, provided they hold positions specifically enumerated under Section 4(a)(1)(a) to (g) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, including managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, regardless of salary grade. The offense of delaying the opening of bids without justifiable cause under Section 65(a)(2) of R.A. No. 9184, when committed in relation to office, falls under Section 4(b) of P.D. No. 1606 as an "other offense" within the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction.

Petitioners were managers of various departments of the Cebu Port Authority (CPA), a government-owned and controlled corporation created under R.A. No. 7621 as a "public-benefit corporation" to administer all ports in the province of Cebu. They served as members of the CPA Bids and Awards Committee (CPA-BAC). The case arose from the conduct of bidding for the provision of janitorial/support services for Calendar Year 2011 for the CPA. The applicable law on Sandiganbayan jurisdiction at the time of the commission of the offense was Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 8249.

Petitioners Mario Geraldo Tan, Oscar Jingapo Lopez, Glenn Biancingo Castillo, Perlita Gemperoa Jumapao, and Sofronio Tillor Magdadaro were managers of various departments of the Cebu Port Authority (CPA), a government-owned and controlled corporation created under R.A. No. 7621. They were charged in their capacity as members of the CPA Bids and Awards Committee (CPA-BAC). On April 27, 2011, the CPA published the Invitation to Bid (ITB) for the procurement of janitorial/support services for Calendar Year 2011 in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, stating that bids and eligibility requirements were to be submitted to the BAC Secretariat on or before May 18, 2011 at 2 p.m. The ITB was signed by Lopez as CPA-BAC Vice Chairman and noted by Engr. Dennis R. Villamor as CPA General Manager.

In a Letter dated April 29, 2011, Tan, the CPA-BAC Chairman, invited the Commission on Audit State Auditor to observe the proceedings, stating that the pre-bid conference was set on May 5, 2011 and the opening of bids was scheduled on May 18, 2011. However, on May 18, 2011, CPA Commissioner Tomas Alburo Riveral requested Villamor to postpone the bidding process to a later date because of "queries from the media and port stakeholders which needed to be answered first." Villamor transmitted the request to the CPA-BAC with the marginal note "Approved as requested." Upon approval of the marginal note, the CPA-BAC informed the bidders present that the opening of bids scheduled for that day was reset to a later date. A Supplemental Bid Bulletin was later posted on May 30, 2011, rescheduling the opening of bids to June 9, 2011. The opening of bids proceeded on June 9, 2011 for all bidders except Able Services, whose bid was opened on June 24, 2011.

A Complaint was filed against Riveral and petitioners before the Office of the Ombudsman. After due proceedings, the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict them for violation of Section 65(a)(2) of R.A. No. 9184, and the Information dated July 4, 2016 was filed before the Sandiganbayan. The Information alleged that petitioners, taking advantage of their official positions and committing the offense in relation to their office and duties, willfully, unlawfully, and criminally delayed without justifiable cause the opening of bids for the procurement of Janitorial/Support Services for CY 2011 of CPA beyond the prescribed period of action by postponing the scheduled opening of bids on May 18, 2011 to June 9, 2011, the postponement having been due merely to alleged queries from media and port stakeholders, which queries, under law, may be raised only by prospective bidders and before the deadline for submission of bids.

Riveral and petitioners filed their respective Motions to Quash. Riveral contended that there was no delay because the postponement was done within the 45-day period allowed under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9184, and that he should not be held criminally liable because he merely requested the postponement but Villamor approved his request. Petitioners argued that the facts alleged in the Information do not constitute an offense. The prosecution opposed both Motions. The Sandiganbayan granted Riveral's Motion to Quash, ruling that it was Villamor who approved the request and transmitted it to the CPA-BAC, and since Villamor was not indicted, there was no reason to indict Riveral. The Sandiganbayan denied petitioners' Motion to Quash, holding that the factual circumstances must first be settled before a final determination of whether the postponement was justified.

Petitioners filed an Urgent Partial Motion for Reconsideration and a Supplement with Urgent Prayer, arguing that pursuant to R.A. No. 10660, the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction over them because they occupy positions below the salary grade 27 jurisdiction threshold, and that the Information does not allege any damage to government or bribery. The Sandiganbayan denied both motions, and petitioners filed the instant Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

• Lack of Jurisdiction — Salary Grade: Petitioners contended that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over their case because they hold the position of managers in various departments of the CPA with salary grade below 27, in which case it is the RTC that has exclusive jurisdiction over their case.

• Lack of Jurisdiction — Nature of Offense: Petitioners argued that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over their case because they are charged with violation of the procurement law, which is not a case falling under Section 4(a) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, which should involve a violation of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379, or Title VII, Chapter II, Section 2 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Lack of Jurisdiction — No Allegation of Damage or Bribery: Petitioners contended that the Information filed against them does not allege any damage to government or bribery, nor alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding PHP1,000,000.00, thus the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over their case.

• Facts Do Not Constitute an Offense: Petitioners argued that there was a justifiable cause to postpone the opening of bids because Riveral wrote Villamor requesting the postponement, and Villamor approved the request with the marginal note "Approved as requested," so the delay was caused by Villamor's directive and not through their own action.

• Opposition to Motion to Quash: The prosecution opposed the Motions to Quash filed by Riveral and petitioners, although the specific arguments raised by the prosecution are not detailed in the decision.

• Jurisdiction — Salary Grade: Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over petitioners who hold positions with salary grade below 27 as managers of the CPA, a government-owned and controlled corporation.

• Jurisdiction — Nature of Offense: Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a charge for violation of Section 65(a)(2) of R.A. No. 9184, which is not among the offenses enumerated in Section 4(a) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended.

• Jurisdiction — Applicability of R.A. No. 10660: Whether the Sandiganbayan lacks jurisdiction because the Information does not allege damage to government or bribery in an amount not exceeding PHP1,000,000.00, pursuant to R.A. No. 10660.

• Sufficiency of the Information: Whether the facts alleged in the Information constitute the offense of violation of Section 65(a)(2) of R.A. No. 9184.

• Jurisdiction — Salary Grade: No. Public officials occupying positions classified as Salary Grade 26 and below may still fall within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, provided that they hold the positions enumerated under Section 4(a)(1)(a) to (g) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended. Petitioners, as managers of a GOCC, are specifically enumerated in Section 4(a)(1)(g).

• Jurisdiction — Nature of Offense: No. Public officials enumerated in Section 4(a)(1)(a) to (g) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, may be charged in the Sandiganbayan not only with violations of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379, or Title VII, Chapter II, Section 2 of the RPC, but also with other offenses or felonies committed in relation to their office pursuant to Section 4(b).

• Jurisdiction — Applicability of R.A. No. 10660: No. R.A. No. 10660 applies only to cases arising from offenses committed after its effectivity on May 5, 2015. The offense here was committed on May 18, 2011, before the effectivity of R.A. No. 10660.

• Sufficiency of the Information: No. The facts constituting all the elements of violation of Section 65(a)(2) of R.A. No. 9184 are clearly averred in the Information, and matters of defense should be threshed out in a full-blown trial on the merits.

• Jurisdiction — Salary Grade: The Court cited People vs. Sandiganbayan and Amante, which interpreted Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, to mean that those classified as Grade 26 and below may still fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan provided they hold the positions enumerated by the same law, including "managers of government-owned or controlled corporations." Petitioners hold the position of managers with salary grade below 27 in various departments of the CPA, which is a GOCC created under R.A. No. 7621 as a "public-benefit corporation" to administer all ports in the province of Cebu. Their position as managers of a GOCC is specifically enumerated in Section 4(a)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, as public officers under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The Court has ruled on numerous occasions that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over presidents, directors, trustees, or managers of GOCCs, citing Poro Exim Corporation vs. Vicente, Maligalig vs. Sandiganbayan, Lazarte, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, People vs. Sandiganbayan and Alas, and Geduspan vs. People.

• Jurisdiction — Nature of Offense: The Court held that the phrase "other offenses and felonies" in Section 4(b) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, is broad in scope but limited to those committed in relation to the public official or employee's office. 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 their official functions, there being no personal motive to commit the crime, the accused is held to have been indicted for "an offense committed in relation" to their office. The Court cited Alarilla vs. Sandiganbayan (grave threats in relation to office), Ampongan vs. Sandiganbayan (falsification of public document), and People vs. Sandiganbayan (violation of the Auditing Code) as cases where the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over other offenses committed in relation to office. Here, a plain reading of the Information shows that the charge against petitioners was committed in relation to their office and duties, and while taking advantage of their official positions in the CPA.

• Jurisdiction — Applicability of R.A. No. 10660: The Court cited Ampongan, which held that the amendment in Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 on jurisdiction shall apply only to cases arising from offenses committed after its effectivity. The transitory provision of R.A. No. 10660 provides that the amendment regarding the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan shall apply to cases arising from offenses committed after the effectivity of the law. The Information alleged that the offense was committed on May 18, 2011, which was before the effectivity of R.A. No. 10660 on May 5, 2015. Thus, R.A. No. 10660 finds no application to petitioners' case, and the Information need not allege damage to government or bribery in the amount not exceeding PHP1,000,000.00.

• Sufficiency of the Information: The Court applied the test for determining whether facts charged constitute an offense: whether the facts as alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the crime defined in law; matters aliunde will not be considered. Under Rule 110, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, an Information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused, the designation of the offense by the statute, the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed. The Information must clearly and accurately allege the elements of the crime and the circumstances constituting the charge. Section 65(a)(2) of R.A. No. 9184 penalizes "[d]elaying, without justifiable cause, the screening for eligibility, opening of bids, evaluation and post evaluation of bids, and awarding of contracts beyond the prescribed periods of action provided for in the IRR." The Court found that the Information specifically alleges that petitioners are public officers who are members of the CPA-BAC, and that the felonious act consisted of willfully, unlawfully, and criminally delaying without justifiable cause the opening of bids by postponing the scheduled opening from May 18, 2011 to June 9, 2011. The contention that the marginal note of Villamor was the proximate cause of the postponement and constituted a justifiable cause are matters of defense that should be threshed out in a full-blown trial on the merits.

• Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over GOCC managers regardless of salary grade — Under Section 4(a)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, the Sandiganbayan exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over presidents, directors, trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations. Public officials occupying positions classified as Salary Grade 26 and below may still fall within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan provided they hold the positions enumerated under Section 4(a)(1)(a) to (g). The Court applied this doctrine to hold that petitioners, as managers of the CPA, a GOCC, fall within the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction regardless of their salary grade.

• "Other offenses or felonies committed in relation to office" — Under Section 4(b) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over other offenses or felonies committed by public officials and employees mentioned in Section 4(a) in relation to their office. The phrase "other offenses and felonies" is broad in scope but limited to those committed in relation to the public official or employee's office. An offense is committed "in relation to office" when it 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 their official functions, there being no personal motive to commit the crime, and had the accused not committed it had they not held the office. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that a violation of R.A. No. 9184, though not enumerated in Section 4(a), falls under Section 4(b) as an "other offense" committed in relation to office.

• Prospective application of R.A. No. 10660 — The amendment introduced by R.A. No. 10660 regarding the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, specifically the transfer to the RTC of cases where the information does not allege damage to the government or bribery, or alleges damage or bribery in an amount not exceeding PHP1,000,000.00, applies only to cases arising from offenses committed after the effectivity of the law. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that R.A. No. 10660 does not apply to petitioners' case because the offense was committed on May 18, 2011, before the law's effectivity on May 5, 2015.

• Test for sufficiency of an Information — The test to determine if the facts charged constitute an offense is whether the facts as alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the crime defined in law; matters aliunde will not be considered. An Information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused, the designation of the offense by the statute, the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed. The Court applied this test to hold that the Information sufficiently alleged all the elements of violation of Section 65(a)(2) of R.A. No. 9184.

• "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." — This passage from People vs. Sandiganbayan and Amante, quoted by the Court, establishes the doctrine that salary grade is not determinative of Sandiganbayan jurisdiction where the accused holds an enumerated position, including managers of GOCCs.

• "Verily, 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 their official functions, there being no personal motive to commit the crime and had the accused not have committed it had they not held the aforesaid office, the accused is held to have been indicted for 'an offense committed in relation' to their office." — This passage defines the test for determining when an offense is committed "in relation to office" for purposes of Section 4(b) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, and was applied to hold that the violation of the procurement law falls within the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction.

• "It is clear from the transitory provision of R.A. No. 10660 that the amendment introduced regarding the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan shall apply to cases arising from offenses committed after the effectivity of the law." — This passage from Ampongan establishes the prospective application of R.A. No. 10660's jurisdictional amendments, which the Court applied to reject petitioners' argument that the Information must allege damage to government or bribery.

• "The test to determine if the facts charged constitute an offense is whether the facts as alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the crime defined in law. Matters aliunde will not be considered." — This passage states the controlling test for determining the sufficiency of an Information, which the Court applied to find that the Information sufficiently alleged all elements of violation of Section 65(a)(2) of R.A. No. 9184.

• People vs. Sandiganbayan and Amante, 613 Phil. 407 (2009) — Controlling precedent interpreting Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, to hold that officials classified as Grade 26 and below may still fall within the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction if they hold positions enumerated in Section 4(a)(1)(a) to (g), including managers of GOCCs. Also cited for the definition of "offense committed in relation to office."

• Ampongan vs. Sandiganbayan, 859 Phil. 872 (2019) — Followed for the doctrine that R.A. No. 10660's amendments to Sandiganbayan jurisdiction apply only to offenses committed after its effectivity. Also cited as an example of the Sandiganbayan having jurisdiction over an "other offense" (falsification of public document) committed in relation to office.

• Alarilla vs. Sandiganbayan, 393 Phil. 143 (2000) — Followed as an example of the Sandiganbayan having jurisdiction over a crime of grave threats committed in relation to office under Section 4(b) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended.

• People vs. Sandiganbayan, 645 Phil. 53 (2010) — Followed as an example of the Sandiganbayan having jurisdiction over a violation of the Auditing Code committed in relation to office under Section 4(b) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended.

• Lazarte, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, 600 Phil. 475 (2009) — Cited for the test to determine if facts charged constitute an offense and for the proposition that matters aliunde will not be considered. Also cited among cases holding that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over managers of GOCCs.

• Geduspan vs. People, 491 Phil. 375 (2005) — Cited among cases holding that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over managers of GOCCs.

• Poro Exim Corporation vs. Vicente, G.R. Nos. 256060-61, June 27, 2023 — Cited among cases holding that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over presidents, directors, trustees, or managers of GOCCs.

• Maligalig vs. Sandiganbayan, 867 Phil. 847 (2019) — Cited among cases holding that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over managers of GOCCs.

• People vs. Sandiganbayan and Alas, 491 Phil. 591 (2005) — Cited among cases holding that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over managers of GOCCs.

• Jalandoni vs. Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 211751, 217212-80, 244467-535, 245546-614, May 10, 2021 — Cited for the standard that an Information is sufficient if the acts or omissions complained of are alleged in a way that enables a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, allows them to prepare their defense, and equips the court to render proper judgment.

• Section 65(a)(2), R.A. No. 9184 — The Government Procurement Reform Act provision penalizing public officers who delay, without justifiable cause, the screening for eligibility, opening of bids, evaluation and post evaluation of bids, and awarding of contracts beyond the prescribed periods of action provided for in the IRR. The Court found that the Information sufficiently alleged all elements of this offense.

• Section 4, P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 8249 — The provision defining the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Section 4(a)(1)(g) covers presidents, directors, trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations; Section 4(b) covers other offenses or felonies committed by public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) in relation to their office. The Court applied these provisions to hold that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over petitioners.

• Section 4, P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 10660 — The amendment transferring to the RTC exclusive original jurisdiction over cases where the information does not allege damage to the government or bribery, or alleges damage or bribery in an amount not exceeding PHP1,000,000.00. The Court held this amendment applies only to offenses committed after the law's effectivity on May 5, 2015, and thus does not apply to petitioners' case.

• Rule 110, Section 6, Rules of Court — The provision on the sufficiency of a complaint or information, requiring that it state the name of the accused, the designation of the offense by the statute, the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed. The Court applied this provision to find the Information sufficient.

• R.A. No. 7621 — The law creating the Cebu Port Authority as a "public-benefit corporation" to administer all ports in the province of Cebu. The Court cited this law to establish that the CPA is a GOCC, making petitioners' positions as managers fall under Section 4(a)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended.

Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, M. Lopez, and J. Lopez, JJ., concurred in the decision.

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted in the provided case text.