G.R. No. 234670-71 - Ampongan vs. Sandiganbayan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 234670-71)

Petitions, Dockets and Court Action

The Office of the Ombudsman filed two Informations with the Sandiganbayan on July 14, 2017 (SB-17-CRM-1429 and SB-17-CRM-1430). The Sandiganbayan, on September 29, 2017, denied petitioner’s motion to quash, arraigned him, and entered a not-guilty plea on his behalf after he declined to plead. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 seeking annulment of the Sandiganbayan’s order denying the motion to quash.

Key Dates

Alleged date of commission of offenses: November 3, 2014 (or sometime prior or subsequent thereto). Informations filed: July 14, 2017. Sandiganbayan Order denying motion to quash and arraigning petitioner: September 29, 2017. Supreme Court decision on the certiorari petition: August 14, 2019. Applicable constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date post‑1990).

Charges in the Informations

Count I: Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — accused as a high‑ranking public officer acting with evident bad faith, manifest partiality or gross inexcusable negligence, allegedly gave unwarranted benefits or preference to Edsel S. Dimaiwat by appointing him without the Iriga City Personnel Selection Board having conducted screening or deliberation. Count II: Falsification of Public Document under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code — accused allegedly caused the CSC appointment paper (KSS Porma Blg. 33) to state that the appointee had been screened and found qualified by the Promotion/Personnel Selection Board when this was untrue.

Grounds for Motion to Quash

Petitioner sought to quash the Informations for lack of jurisdiction on two principal grounds: (1) the Informations did not allege damage to the government or bribery in excess of One Million pesos, such that jurisdiction should lie with the Regional Trial Court under Section 2 of R.A. No. 10660; and (2) petitioner’s position as City Vice‑Mayor with salary grade 26 placed him outside the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction under the applicable law as argued by petitioner.

Procedural Requirement and Exceptions

The Supreme Court noted petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration from the Sandiganbayan’s order, which ordinarily is a condition precedent to certiorari relief. The Court identified recognized exceptions to that rule and found the instant petition fell within exceptions (b) and (i): the same issues raised in the motion to quash were already passed upon by the Sandiganbayan, and the issues presented were purely legal questions, thus permitting certiorari without a prior motion for reconsideration.

Governing Statutory Framework and Legislative History

The Court traced the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdictional evolution: created by P.D. No. 1486 and amended by successive decrees and statutes (P.D. No. 1606, P.D. No. 1861, R.A. No. 7975, and R.A. No. 8249). R.A. No. 10660 (effective May 5, 2015) subsequently amended jurisdictional provisions and included a transitory clause limiting application of certain jurisdictional changes to offenses committed after the law’s effectivity. The Court emphasized that R.A. No. 8249 (effective February 23, 1997) governs offenses committed prior to the operative limitation of R.A. No. 10660.

Temporal Rule for Determining Jurisdiction

The Court reiterated the general rule that the jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is determined at the time of the commission of the offense, not merely at the time of filing; and it analyzed the interplay between R.A. No. 10660’s amendments and its transitory provision. Since the alleged offenses occurred on November 3, 2014 — before R.A. No. 10660 took effect — the Court concluded R.A. No. 10660’s provision divesting Sandiganbayan jurisdiction in certain low‑damage or non‑bribery cases did not apply. Therefore, R.A. No. 8249 remained the applicable law for jurisdictional purposes.

Application of R.A. No. 8249 to Petitioner’s Position

Under Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 (which modified P.D. No. 1606 as amended), the Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of R.A. No. 3019 and related offenses when one or more accused are officials occupying specified positions. While R.A. No. 8249 generally referenced salary grade 27 and higher, it also specifically enumerated certain positions regardless of salary grade — including city vice‑mayors and members of the sangguniang panlungsod — as falling within Sandiganbayan jurisdiction. The Court relied on prior precedents (notably Inding v. Sandiganbayan) and legislative history establishing that Congress intentionally included such specific offices within the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction irrespective of salary grade.

Relation of the Falsification Charge to Offic

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 234670-71)

Procedural Posture

Petition: Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by Omar Erasmo Gonowon Ampongan seeking annulment and setting aside of the Sandiganbayan Order dated September 29, 2017 issued in SB-17-CRM-1429 and SB-17-CRM-1430.
Relief sought: Annulment and setting aside of the Sandiganbayan Order that denied petitioner’s Motion to Quash Informations and ordered arraignment and entry of plea (not guilty entered by the court).
Decision sought from the Supreme Court: Review of Sandiganbayan’s denial of Motion to Quash on grounds of lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Antecedent Facts

Date informations filed: July 14, 2017 — two Informations filed by the Office of the Ombudsman through the Office of the Special Prosecutor with the Sandiganbayan.
Alleged date of commission: November 3, 2014, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto (the Informations allege the offense occurred on that date or around it).
Petitioner's official status at alleged time of offense: Vice Mayor of Iriga City, Camarines Sur.
Petitioner's salary classification at the time: Salary Grade 26 under R.A. No. 6758 (Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989).
Docketing: The Information for Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 docketed as SB-17-CRM-1429; the Information for Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code docketed as SB-17-CRM-1430.
Counsel at arraignment: Atty. Emmanuel Brotardo represented petitioner and moved for deferment of arraignment.

Informations — Charge for Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Accusatory Portion)

Allegations (quoted and summarized from the Information):
- Time and place: "on 3 November 2014, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Iriga City, Camarines Sur, Philippines."
- Capacity: Accused Omar Erasmo Gonowon Ampongan is described as "a high-ranking public officer, being the City Vice-Mayor of Iriga City, in such capacity, committing the crime in relation to office and while in the performance of his official functions."
- Conduct alleged: "acting with evident bad faith, manifest partiality and/or gross inexcusable negligence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally give unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to Edsel S. Dimaiwat by appointing the latter to the vacant position of Secretary to the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Iriga City without the Iriga City Personnel Selection board having conducted a screening or deliberation on the qualifications of the candidates to the said vacant position."
- Alleged prejudice: "to the damage and prejudice of the public interest."
- Concluding phrase: "CONTRARY TO LAW."

Informations — Charge for Falsification of Public Document (Article 171(2) RPC)

Allegations (quoted and summarized from the Information):
- Time and place: "on 3 November 2014, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Iriga City, Camarines Sur, Philippines."
- Capacity and relation to office: Accused is "a high-ranking public officer, being the City Vice-Mayor of Iriga City, in such capacity, committing the offense in relation to office and while in the performance of his official functions, and taking advantage of his position."
- Conduct alleged: Accused "did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously make it appear or cause it to appear in the Civil Service Commission (CSC) appointment paper (KSS Porma Blg. 33) of Edsel S. Dimaiwat as Secretary to the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Iriga City, a public document, that 'the appointee has been screened and found qualified by the Promotion/Personnel Selection Board', when in truth and in fact, as accused well knew, that the Iriga City Personnel Selection Board did not conduct a screening or deliberation on the qualifications of the candidates to the said position, nor did the selection board convene, participate or deliberate on the qualifications of Dimaiwat for the same position."
- Alleged prejudice: "to the damage and prejudice of public interest."
- Concluding phrase: "CONTRARY TO LAW."

Motion to Quash — Grounds Advanced by Petitioner

Basis of motion: Lack of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Two principal arguments advanced in the Motion to Quash (filed September 25, 2017):
- Jurisdictional monetary threshold: The Informations do not allege government damage in excess of One million pesos or bribery; under petitioner’s reading, jurisdiction for such cases would be vested in the Regional Trial Court pursuant to Section 2 of R.A. No. 10660.
- Salary grade argument: Even under R.A. No. 8249 (the law governing jurisdiction at the time of the commission of the offense), petitioner, as City Vice-Mayor carrying Salary Grade 26, would not fall within the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction.

Sandiganbayan Order (September 29, 2017) — Ruling on Motion to Quash and Arraignment

Court’s ruling on Motion to Quash:
- Denied the Motion to Quash Informations.
- Reasoning: (1) The Sandiganbayan’s requirement that the allegation of damage exceed One Million Pesos for jurisdiction applies only to offenses committed after May 15, 2015; the alleged commission date in this case is 2014. (2) The position of City Vice-Mayor is among those enumerated in the provisions of R.A. 8249 (and reiterated in R.A. 10660) over which the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction, regardless of salary grade.
Arraignment proceedings:
- The Informations were read in open court.
- Petitioner, assisted by counsel, informed the court he understood the accusations but refused to enter a plea.
- The court ordered a plea of not guilty be entered for the accused in the two criminal cases.
- Pre-trial set for October 27, 2017 at 1:30 p.m.
Form and authorship of the Order:
- The Order is referenced in the record and appears at rollo pages cited in the source.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Narrow legal question framed by the petition: Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offenses allegedly committed by petitioner and over his person.

Preliminary Procedural Note — Failure to File Motion for Reconsideration

Petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration before filing the petition for certiorari.
General rule stated: A motion for reconsideration is ordinarily a condition precedent to the filing of a certiorari petition to allow the court a chance to correct errors.
Exceptions to the rule: The Court enumerated well-defined exceptions where a motion for reconsideration may be unnecessary, including:
- (a) order is a patent nullity (e.g., where the court a quo has no jurisdiction);
- (b) where the questions in certiorari proceedings were duly raised and passed upon in the lower court;
- (c) urgency so that delay would prejudice government or petitioner, or subject matter is perishable;
- (d) where a motion for reconsideration would be useless;
- (e) deprivation of due process and extreme urgency;
- (f) in criminal cases where relief from an order of arrest is urgent and trial court relief unlikely;
- (g) nullity of lower court proceedings for lack of due process;
- (h) proceedings were ex parte or the petitioner had no opportunity to object;
- (i) where the issue is purely a question of law or involves public interest.
Application here: The Court found that petitioner’s certiorari raised the same arguments as in his Motion to Quash wh