Macalino vs. Sandiganbayan

Factual Background

The informations alleged that FELICITO S. MACALINO was then Assistant Manager of the Treasury Division and Head of the Loans Administration & Insurance Section of the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC), a corporation referenced in the pleadings as government-controlled. The complaints charged that petitioner, taking advantage of his position and in conspiracy with his spouse LIWAYWAY S. TAN, owner of Wacker Marketing, falsified payment documents and caused demand drafts and checks payable to Wacker Marketing to be issued or altered, resulting in pecuniary damage to PNCC in the amounts alleged in Criminal Cases Nos. 18022 and 19268.

The Charges Alleged

In Criminal Case No. 18022 the information alleged that petitioner superimposed the name Wacker Marketing as payee on documents supporting an application for demand drafts totaling PHP 983,682.11, causing PNB Buendia to issue demand drafts payable to Wacker Marketing that were later exchanged and deposited into Wacker Marketing’s account. In Criminal Case No. 19268 the information alleged that petitioner altered a PNB check for PHP 2,250,000.00 to make it appear payable to Wacker Marketing instead of Interbank, and that the altered check was deposited into Wacker Marketing’s account, resulting in a frustrated estafa when the issuing bank dishonored the check after noting alterations.

Trial Proceedings and Motion to Dismiss

Petitioner pleaded not guilty at arraignment on November 9, 1992 and trial proceeded. During the initial presentation of the defense, petitioner sought leave to file a motion to dismiss contending that the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction because he was not a public officer within the coverage of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, since PNCC had no original charter but was incorporated under the general corporation law. The People opposed the motion. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to dismiss by resolution promulgated August 5, 1999.

Petitioner’s Contentions

Petitioner contended that because PNCC was incorporated under the general corporation law and had no original charter, he did not qualify as a public officer or employee for purposes of R.A. No. 3019 and the Ombudsman’s and Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. He argued that the 1987 Constitution limited the reach of the Ombudsman and civil service to government instrumentalities and government-owned or controlled corporations only when such corporations had original charters, thereby excluding employees of corporations like PNCC.

The People’s Position

The People opposed dismissal and relied upon prior authorities that had treated employees of government-owned or controlled corporations as public officers under earlier constitutional and statutory schemes. The People cited cases decided under the 1973 Constitution that had included officials and employees of corporations owned and controlled by the government within the concept of public officers.

Sandiganbayan Ruling

The Sandiganbayan denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of merit and continued the prosecution of Criminal Cases Nos. 18022 and 19268 against petitioner and LIWAYWAY S. TAN, prompting petitioner’s certiorari petition under Rule 65 to the Supreme Court challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The sole issue presented was whether FELICITO S. MACALINO, as an employee of PNCC, was a public officer within the coverage of R.A. No. 3019, thereby subjecting him to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and the Office of the Ombudsman.

Legal Analysis and Reasoning

The Court examined the 1987 Constitution provisions governing the reach of the Ombudsman and the civil service. Article XI, Section 12, 1987 Constitution extended the Ombudsman’s authority to complaints against public officials or employees of the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, “including government-owned or controlled corporations.” Article XI, Section 13(2) and Article IX-B, Section 2(1) qualified the extension by expressly limiting such inclusion to “government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters.” The Court noted that Republic Act No. 6770 (the Ombudsman Act) contained parallel language conferring investigative and prosecutorial powers over “government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters.” Because PNCC had been incorporated under the general corporation law and had no original charter, the Court concluded that PNCC did not fall within the constitutional and statutory category that subjects its employees to the Ombudsman’s and Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction under R.A. No. 3019. The Court distinguished prior cases relied upon by the People as having been decided under the 1973 Constitution, which had a broader conception of public officers that included officials and employees of government-owned or controlled corporations organized under general corporation law. The Court further observed that the alleged offenses occurred in 1989 and 1990 and that the criminal actions were instituted in 1992; it applied the rule that the jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is determined by the law in force at the institution of the action. The Court recognized a limited exception whereby the Sandiganbayan may have juri