Case Digest (G.R. No. 113517)
Facts:
In People of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) and Rolando Plaza, G.R. No. 169004, decided on September 15, 2010, the petitioner, the People of the Philippines, sought to reverse the Sandiganbayan’s July 20, 2005 resolution dismissing Criminal Case No. 27988 for lack of jurisdiction. Respondent Rolando Plaza, then a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Toledo City, Cebu, salary grade 25, was charged with willfully failing to liquidate a ₱33,000.00 cash advance he received on December 19, 1995, in violation of Section 89 of Presidential Decree No. 1445 (The Auditing Code). The Information was filed on March 25, 2004. Plaza moved to dismiss, arguing that the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction over officials below salary grade 27 except for specific offenses under Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), R.A. 1379, or certain provisions of the Revised Penal Code. The Sandiganbayan directed the prosecution to comment, received opposition from t...Case Digest (G.R. No. 113517)
Facts:
- Parties and Position
- Respondent Rolando Plaza
- Member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Toledo City, Cebu
- Salary Grade 25 at the time of the alleged offense
- Petitioner
- The People of the Philippines, acting through the Office of the Ombudsman
- Charge and Information
- Offense Charged
- Violation of Section 89, Presidential Decree No. 1445 (The Auditing Code of the Philippines)
- Failure to liquidate cash advances amounting to ₱33,000.00 received on December 19, 1995
- Allegations
- Plaza obtained cash advances by reason of his office and did not liquidate them within the period required by law
- He willfully, unlawfully, and criminally failed to liquidate despite demands, causing damage to the government
- Procedural History
- Sandiganbayan (Third Division)
- April 7, 2005 – Plaza filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
- April 12, 2005 – Order directing the People to comment
- April 19, 2005 – People filed Opposition
- July 20, 2005 – Resolution dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice to refiling before the proper court
- Supreme Court
- September 2, 2005 – Petition for review under Rule 45 seeking to set aside the Sandiganbayan’s dismissal
Issues:
- Jurisdictional Question
- Whether the Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over a public official below Salary Grade 27 (Plaza, Grade 25)
- Whether jurisdiction extends to offenses “in relation to office” under Section 4(b) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. Nos. 7975 and 8249
- Scope of Section 4(a)(1) Exceptions
- Whether the enumeration in Section 4(a)(1) applies only to graft-related offenses (R.A. 3019, R.A. 1379, Title VII RPC)
- Whether Inding v. Sandiganbayan restricts Section 4(a)(1) to those specific statutes
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)