|
PEOPLE OF THE
Petitioner, -versus- SANDIGANBAYAN (third division) and VICTORIA AMANTE, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 167304 Present: CARPIO MORALES, J.,* CHICO-NAZARIO, Acting Chairperson,** VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: August 25, 2009 |
|
|
|
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PERALTA, J.:
Before this Court is a petition[1]
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set aside the Resolution[2]
of the Sandiganbayan (Third Division) dated
The facts, as culled from the records, are the
following:
Victoria Amante was a member of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of P71,095.00 under a disbursement voucher in order to
defray seminar expenses of the Committee on Health and Environmental
Protection, which she headed. As of
On
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 abovenamed accused VICTORIA AMANTE, 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 SEVENTY-ONE THOUSAND
NINETY-FIVE PESOS (P71,095.00),
Philippine Currency, which she received by reason of her office, for which she
is duty-bound to liquidate the same within the period required by law, with
deliberate intent and intent to gain, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully
and criminally fail to liquidate said cash advances of P71,095.00, Philippine Currency,
despite demands to the damage and prejudice of the government in aforesaid
amount.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.
The case
was raffled to the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan. Thereafter, Amante filed with the said court
a MOTION TO DEFER ARRAIGNMENT AND MOTION FOR REINVESTIGATION[4]
dated November 18, 2004 stating that the Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) dated
September 14, 1999 at Cebu City from of an incomplete proceeding in so far that
respondent Amante had already liquidated and/or refunded the unexpected balance
of her cash advance, which at the time of the investigation was not included as
the same liquidation papers were still in the process of evaluation by the
Accounting Department of Toledo City and that the Sandiganbayan had no
jurisdiction over the said criminal case because respondent Amante was then a
local official who was occupying a position of salary grade 26, whereas Section
4 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8249 provides that the Sandiganbayan shall have
original jurisdiction only in cases where the accused holds a position
otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989, R.A. No. 6758.
The OSP
filed its Opposition[5]
dated
The
Sandiganbayan, in its Resolution[6]
dated
WHEREFORE,
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, this case is hereby dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. The dismissal, however, is
without prejudice to the filing of this case to the proper court.
The
Motion for Reinvestigation filed by the movant is hereby considered moot and
academic.
SO ORDERED.
Hence,
the present petition.
Petitioner
raises this lone issue:
WHETHER
OR NOT 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 RA 3019, RA 1379 OR ANY OF THE FELONIES
MENTIONED IN CHAPTER II, SECTION 2, TITLE VII OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.
In claiming that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction
over the case in question, petitioner disputes the former's appreciation of
this Court's decision in Inding v. Sandiganbayan.[7] According to petitioner, Inding did not categorically nor implicitly constrict or confine
the application of the enumeration provided for under Section 4(a)(1) of P.D.
No. 1606, as amended, exclusively to cases where the offense charged is either
a violation of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No.
1379, or Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioner
adds that the enumeration in Section (a)(1) of
P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 7975 and R.A. No. 8249, which was
made applicable to cases concerning violations of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379
and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code, equally applies
to offenses committed in relation to public office.
Respondent Amante, in her Comment[8]
dated January 16, 2006, averred that, with the way the law was phrased in
Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, it is obvious that the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan was defined first, enumerating the several exceptions to the
general rule, while the exceptions to the general rule are provided in the rest
of the paragraph and sub-paragraphs of Section 4. Therefore, according to respondent Amante,
the Sandiganbayan was correct in ruling that the latter has original
jurisdiction only over cases where the accused is a public official with salary
grade 27 and higher; and in cases where the accused is 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. No. 1606, as amended and his offense involves
a violation of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379 and Chapter II, Section 2, Title
VII of the Revised Penal Code; and 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. The same respondent proceeded to cite a
decision[9] of
this Court where it was held that jurisdiction over the subject matter is
conferred only by the Constitution or law; it cannot be fixed by the will of
the parties; it cannot be acquired through, or waived, enlarged or diminished
by, any act or omission of the parties, neither is it conferred by acquiescence
of the court.
In its Reply[10]
dated March 23, 2006, the OSP reiterated that the enumeration of public
officials in Section 4(a)(1) to (a) to (g) of P.D. No. 1606 as falling within
the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan should include their commission
of other offenses in relation to office under Section 4(b) of the same P.D. No.
1606. It cited the case of Esteban v.
Sandiganbayan, et al.[11]
wherein this Court ruled that an offense is said to have been committed in
relation to the office if the offense is “intimately connected” with the office
of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his official
functions.
The petition is meritorious.
The focal issue raised in the petition is the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. As a
background, this Court had thoroughly discussed the history of the conferment
of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan in Serana v. Sandiganbayan, et al.,[12]
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 responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency and shall remain at all times accountable to the people.[13]
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.[14]
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
Specifically, the question that needs to be
resolved is whether or not a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod under
Salary Grade 26 who was charged with violation of The Auditing Code of the
This Court rules in the affirmative.
The applicable law in this case is Section 4 of P.D.
No. 1606, as amended by Section 2 of R.A.
No. 7975 which took effect on
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:
The present case falls under Section 4(b) where
other offenses and felonies committed by public officials or employees in
relation to their office are involved.
Under the said provision, no exception is contained. Thus, 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 applies in this
present case. Since the present case was instituted on
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, 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.
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.
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 mentioned in subsection (a) in relation to their office
also fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
By simple analogy, applying the
provisions of the pertinent law, respondent Amante, being a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod at the time of
the alleged commission of an offense in relation to her office, falls within
the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
However, the Sandiganbayan, in its Resolution,
dismissed the case with the following ratiocination:
x x x the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Inding case, stating that the Congress' act of specifically including the public officials therein mentioned, “obviously intended cases mentioned in Section 4 (a) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 7975, when committed by the officials enumerated in (1)(a) to (g) thereof, regardless of their salary grades, to be tried by the Sandiganbayan.” Obviously, the Court was referring to cases involving violation of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379 and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code only because they are the specific cases mentioned in Section 4 (a) of P.D. No. 1606 as amended, so that when they are committed even by public officials below salary grade '27', provided they belong to the enumeration, jurisdiction would fall under the Sandiganbayan. When the offense committed however, falls under Section 4(b) or 4(c) of P.D. No. 1606 as amended, it should be emphasized that the general qualification that the public official must belong to grade '27' is a requirement so that the Sandiganbayan could exercise original jurisdiction over him. Otherwise, jurisdiction would fall to the proper regional or municipal trial court.
In
the case at bar, the accused is a Sangguniang Panlungsod member, a position
with salary grade '26'. Her office is included in the enumerated public
officials in Section 4(a) (1) (a) to (g) of P.D. No. 1606 as amended by Section
2 of R.A. No. 7975. However, she is
charged with violation of Section 89 of The Auditing Code of the
Petitioner is correct in disputing
the above ruling of the Sandiganbayan.
Central to the discussion of the Sandiganbayan is the case of Inding v. Sandiganbayan[16] where this Court ruled that the officials
enumerated in (a) to (g) of Section 4(a)(1) of P. D. No. 1606, as amended are
included within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan regardless of
salary grade. According to petitioner,
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. No. 1606, as amended, exclusively to cases
where the offense charged is either a violation of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379,
or Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code. This observation is true in light of the
facts contained in the said case. 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:
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 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. 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.[17]
Thus, in the case of Lacson v. Executive Secretary,[18]
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,[19] where the public
official was charged with grave threats, this Court ruled:
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
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
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, 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[20]
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. 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,[21] unless it is evident that the legislature intended a technical or special legal meaning to those words.[22] The intention of the lawmakers who are, ordinarily, untrained philologists and lexicographers to use statutory phraseology in such a manner is always presumed.[23]
WHEREFORE, the Petition dated
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate
Justice
Acting
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Acting
Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Designated
as an additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago
per Special Order No. 679 dated
** Per Special Order No. 678 dated
[1] Dated
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Godofredo L. Legaspi (now retired), with Associate Justices Efren N. De La Cruz and Norberto Y. Geraldez, concurring, rollo, pp. 59-75.
[3] Sandiganbayan rollo, pp. 1-3.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] G..R. No. 143047,
[8] Rollo, pp. 96-102.
[9]
[10] Rollo, pp. 106-110.
[11] G.R. Nos. 146646-49,
[12] G.R. No. 162059,
[13]
[14]
(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 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.
[15] Subido,
Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 122641,
[16] Supra note 7.
[17] Rodriguez
v. Sandiganbayan 468 Phil. 374, 387 (2004), citing
People v. Montejo, supra note
11, at 622.
[18] G.R.
No. 128096,
[19] 393
Phil. 143, 157-158 (2000).
[20] Cunanan
v. Arceo, G.R. No. 116615,
[21] Romualdez
v. Sandiganbayan, 479 Phil. 265, 287 (2004), citing Mustang
Lumber, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 430, 448 (1996).
[22]
[23]