Facts:

The case involves Omar Erasmo Gonowon Ampongan (petitioner) against the Hon. Sandiganbayan, the People of the Philippines, and the Ombudsman Special Prosecutor (respondents). The events leading to this case began on July 14, 2017, when the Office of the Ombudsman, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor, filed two Informations with the Sandiganbayan. These charges implicated the petitioner in two alleged offenses: (1) a violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and (2) falsification of public documents under Article 171, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. The charges related to the appointment of Edsel Dimaiwat to the position of Secretary to the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Iriga City, a decision made by the petitioner while acting as Vice Mayor in 2014.

The specifics of the anti-graft charge alleged that Ampongan, as a high-ranking public officer, acted with evident bad faith by appointing Dimaiwat witho

...

Facts:

Background and Charges

• On July 14, 2017, the Office of the Ombudsman, through its Special Prosecutor, filed two Informations against petitioner Omar Erasmo Gonowon Ampongan.
• The Informations charged petitioner with:
• Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
• Violation of Article 171, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code (Falsification of Public Document).
• The alleged offenses are tied to petitioner’s action in the appointment of Edsel Dimaiwat to the position of Secretary to the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Iriga City in 2014.

Nature of the Offenses

• For the violation of R.A. No. 3019:
• The Information alleged that on or around November 3, 2014, petitioner, as a high-ranking public officer (the Vice Mayor of Iriga City with salary grade 26), committed the offense by giving unwarranted benefits to Edsel Dimaiwat.
• It was contended that petitioner acted with bad faith, manifest partiality, and/or gross inexcusable negligence by appointing Dimaiwat without a proper screening process by the Iriga City Personnel Selection Board.
• For the falsification charge under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code:
• It was alleged that petitioner, taking advantage of his official capacity as Vice Mayor, caused a public document (the CSC appointment paper) to indicate that Dimaiwat was screened and found qualified—when in fact no screening or deliberation had occurred.
• The offense committed was said to be in relation to petitioner's official functions and for the damage and prejudice of the public interest.

Proceedings at the Sandiganbayan

• Prior to arraignment, petitioner filed a motion to quash the Informations on jurisdictional grounds.
• The argument asserted that because the Informations did not allege damage to the government exceeding One Million Pesos, jurisdiction under R.A. No. 10660 should lie with the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
• Additionally, petitioner claimed that as Vice Mayor with salary grade 26 he did not fall under the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction.
• On September 29, 2017, during arraignment, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash:
• The Court reasoned that the requirement of an allegation of government damage exceeding One Million Pesos applied only to cases committed after May 15, 2015.
• It also noted that as a public official enumerated under applicable laws, petitioner's position was within the ambit of the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction.
• The accused was then arraigned, entered a plea of not guilty, and a pre-trial was scheduled.

Petition for Certiorari

• Petitioner elevated his argument by filing a petition for certiorari against the September 29, 2017 Order.
• He reiterated that the Sandiganbayan exercised grave abuse of discretion or acted with lack or excess of jurisdiction.
• The petition alleged that there was no jurisdiction over offenses, based on both the absence of sufficient damage allegation and his lower salary grade (26).

Absence of Motion for Reconsideration

• It was noted that petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration before resorting to a petition for certiorari.
• The case review mentioned exceptions where a motion for reconsideration might be bypassed, primarily on questions purely of law or in urgent circumstances.

Issue:

Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

• Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offenses charged against petitioner, given the allegations in the Informations.
• Whether petitioner’s position as Vice Mayor with salary grade 26 excludes him from the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
• The proper application of the jurisdictional rule based on the timing of the offense commission versus the filing of the Information, especially in light of amendments introduced by R.A. No. 10660 and the applicable law being R.A. No. 8249.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)