Case Summary (G.R. No. 234670-71)
Petitioner and Respondent
Petitioner: Omar Erasmo Gonowon Ampongan
Respondents: Sandiganbayan; People of the Philippines (Ombudsman Special Prosecutor)
Key Dates
– Alleged offenses: November 3, 2014 (or around that date)
– Informations filed: July 14, 2017
– Sandiganbayan Order denying motion to quash: September 29, 2017
– Decision on certiorari: August 14, 2019
Applicable Law
– 1987 Constitution (decision date post-1990)
– Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
– Revised Penal Code (Art. 171[2], falsification of public document)
– R.A. No. 8249 (jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan at time of offense)
– R.A. No. 10660 (later amendment, not retroactive to 2014 offenses)
Procedural Background
The Office of the Ombudsman filed two Informations before the Sandiganbayan charging Ampongan with:
- Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 for appointing Edsel Dimaiwat without Personnel Selection Board screening;
- Falsification of a CSC appointment paper stating screening occurred when it had not.
Ampongan moved to quash for lack of jurisdiction, arguing no allegation of government damage exceeding ₱1 million and his SG 26 rank placed him outside Sandiganbayan’s ambit.
Charge of Violating R.A. 3019
The Information alleges that, acting with evident bad faith and gross negligence, Ampongan unlawfully appointed Dimaiwat to the Sangguniang Panlungsod Secretary post without board screening, granting unwarranted preference to Dimaiwat to the prejudice of public interest.
Charge of Falsification under the Revised Penal Code
Ampongan is accused of making it appear in the CSC Form 33 that Dimaiwat had been screened and found qualified by the Promotion/Personnel Selection Board, when in fact no such screening occurred, thus prejudicing public interest.
Motion to Quash and Sandiganbayan’s Order
Ampongan’s motion contended that under R.A. 10660, the Sandiganbayan lacks jurisdiction since the information either fails to allege damage or alleges damage not exceeding ₱1 million, and his SG 26 position excludes him. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion, held R.A. 10660’s jurisdictional amendment applies only to offenses committed after May 5, 2015, and reiterated that SG 26 vice mayors fall within its jurisdiction under prior law (R.A. 8249). It entered a not‐guilty plea for Ampongan and set pretrial.
Issue Presented
Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion by asserting jurisdiction over Ampongan and the offenses charged.
Exceptions to Motion for Reconsideration
Though Ampongan did not move for reconsideration of the Sandiganbayan’s order, the Supreme Court found exception where issues of pure law already passed upon by the lower court warrant immediate certiorari.
Applicable Jurisdictional Law
Although R.A. 10660 (effective May 5, 2015) amended Sandiganbayan jurisdiction to shift to RTC cases lacking alleged damage above ₱1 million, its transitory provision limits that amendment to offenses committed after enactment. The alleged offenses in 2014 thus remain governed by R.A. 8249 (effective February 23, 1997).
Non-Applicability of R.A. 10660
Under R.A. 10660’s transitory provision, amendments to jurisdiction apply only to offenses committed after its effectivity. Since Ampongan’s alleged acts occurred in November 2014, jurisdiction is determined by R.A. 8249.
Jurisdiction Under R.A. 8249
Section 4 of R.A. 8249 vests exclusive original jurisdiction in the Sandiganbayan over graft offenses under R.A. 3019 and related crimes when committed by officials in specified positions—among them vice mayors—regard
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 234670-71)
Procedural History
- Petitioner Omar Erasmo Gonowon Ampongan filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition on November 27, 2017, assailing the Sandiganbayan’s September 29, 2017 Order in SB-17-CRM-1429 and SB-17-CRM-1430.
- The assailed Order denied Ampongan’s Motion to Quash the Informations for lack of jurisdiction and proceeded with arraignment, entering a plea of “not guilty.”
- The Supreme Court treated the petition under certiorari exceptions (b) and (i), as the same pure questions of law had been passed upon by the Sandiganbayan.
Facts of the Case
- In 2014, Omar Ampongan was serving as Vice Mayor of Iriga City, salary grade 26 under R.A. No. 6758.
- On July 14, 2017, the Ombudsman filed two Informations in the Sandiganbayan:
- SB-17-CRM-1429: Violation of Section 3(e), R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
- SB-17-CRM-1430: Falsification of public document under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
- Both charges stemmed from Ampongan’s alleged appointment of Edsel S. Dimaiwat as Secretary to the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Iriga City without proper screening by the City Personnel Selection Board.
Accusatory Instruments and Charges
- Section 3(e), R.A. 3019 count:
- High-ranking public officer Ampongan acted with evident bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence.
- He purportedly gave unwarranted advantage to Dimaiwat by appointing him without board screening.
- Article 171(2), Revised Penal Code count:
- Ampongan allegedly falsified a CSC appointment paper (KSS Porma No. 33), declaring that Dimaiwat “has been screened and found qualified by the Promotion/Personnel Selection Board” when no such screening occurred.
Motion to Quash and Sandiganbayan Order
- Ampongan moved to quash for lack of jurisdiction, arguing:
- No allegation of damage to government in excess of ₱1,000,000 or bribery, vesting jurisdiction in the RTC under Section 2, R.A. 10660.
- As Vice Mayor with SG 26, he fell outside Sandiganbayan’s ratione personae jurisdiction.
- The Sandiganbayan denied the Motion, ruling:
- The ₱1 million threshold in R.A. 10660 applies only to offenses committed after May 15, 2015; these were in 2014.
- City Vice Mayor is explicitly en