Case Digest (G.R. No. 129093) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Omar Erasmo Gonowon Ampongan v. Sandiganbayan, People of the Philippines, and Ombudsman Special Prosecutor (G.R. Nos. 234670–71, August 14, 2019), petitioner Omar Erasmo Gonowon Ampongan, then Vice-Mayor of Iriga City, Camarines Sur (Salary Grade 26 under R.A. No. 6758), was charged by the Office of the Ombudsman on July 14, 2017 with two offenses before the Sandiganbayan: (1) violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for appointing Edsel S. Dimaiwat as Secretary to the Sangguniang Panlungsod without the required merit screening, and (2) falsification of public document under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code for certifying in the CSC appointment paper that Dimaiwat had been screened and found qualified when no such screening occurred. Ampongan moved to quash both informations, arguing lack of jurisdiction on grounds that no damage to the government in excess of ₱1,000,000 was alleged and that his office, being SG 26, fell outsid Case Digest (G.R. No. 129093) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Criminal Informations and Charges
- On July 14, 2017, the Office of the Ombudsman filed two Informations in the Sandiganbayan (SB-17-CRM-1429 and SB-17-CRM-1430) against Omar Erasmo G. Ampongan, then Vice Mayor of Iriga City (Salary Grade 26).
- He was charged with:
- Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 for appointing Edsel S. Dimaiwat as Secretary to the Sangguniang Panlungsod without Personnel Selection Board screening; and
- Falsification of a public document under Article 171(2) RPC for certifying in CSC Form 33 that the appointee had been screened and found qualified, when in fact no such screening occurred.
- Motion to Quash and Sandiganbayan Order
- Petitioner moved to quash the Informations for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that:
- The Informations did not allege damage to the government exceeding ₱1 million or bribery, thus RTC jurisdiction under Section 2 of R.A. 10660; and
- As Vice Mayor (SG 26), he was not within Sandiganbayan jurisdiction under R.A. 8249.
- On September 29, 2017, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion, ruled that R.A. 10660 did not apply (offenses committed in 2014), that R.A. 8249 governed and included Vice Mayors regardless of salary grade, and entered a not‐guilty plea for petitioner.
- Petition for Certiorari
- Petitioner filed a Rule 65 petition before the Supreme Court to annul the Sandiganbayan Order for grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction.
- The Supreme Court noted petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration but found exceptions applicable.
Issues:
- Whether petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration bars his petition for certiorari.
- Whether the Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over petitioner and the offenses charged under R.A. 10660 or, if inapplicable, under R.A. 8249.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)