G.R. No. L-24693 - Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. vs. City Mayor of Manila

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-24693)

Key Dates

Alleged commission of offense: on or about December 19, 1995; Information filed: March 25, 2004; Sandiganbayan Resolution dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction: July 20, 2005; petition under Rule 45 filed with the Supreme Court: September 2, 2005; Supreme Court decision resolving the petition: September 15, 2010. (The 1987 Constitution is the operative Constitution for purposes of this decision.)

Applicable Law

Primary statutes and provisions applied: Section 89 of Presidential Decree No. 1445 (The Auditing Code of the Philippines) (the substantive offense charged); Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606 as amended by Republic Act No. 7975 and subsequently by Republic Act No. 8249 (defining the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction); ancillary references to jurisprudence interpreting “offenses committed in relation to office.” The Court applied the 1987 Philippine Constitution as the constitutional framework governing judicial power and the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction.

Factual Background

Rolando Plaza received cash advances from the City Government of Toledo in the total amount of P33,000.00 on December 19, 1995. He was charged in the Sandiganbayan with willfully failing to liquidate those cash advances, an alleged violation of Section 89 of P.D. No. 1445. Plaza was a city council member (sangguniang panlungsod), salary grade 25.

Procedural History

Plaza filed a Motion to Dismiss before the Sandiganbayan on April 7, 2005. The Sandiganbayan ordered the prosecution to comment; the People opposed the motion. On July 20, 2005 the Sandiganbayan (Third Division) dismissed Criminal Case No. 27988 for lack of jurisdiction, stating the case should be filed in the proper court. The People petitioned the Supreme Court under Rule 45 to annul and set aside the Sandiganbayan’s dismissal.

Central Legal Issue

Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction to try a public official occupying a position below salary grade 27 (specifically a member of the sangguniang panlungsod, salary grade 25) for an offense under the Auditing Code (P.D. No. 1445, Section 89) that was alleged to have been committed in relation to his public office.

Governing Jurisdictional Principles

The Court reaffirmed the settled rule that a court’s jurisdiction is determined at the time of institution of the action; thus the amendments to P.D. No. 1606 effected by R.A. No. 7975 and R.A. No. 8249 in effect at the time the Information was filed (March 25, 2004) govern the jurisdictional inquiry. Section 4(a) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, enumerates specific offenses (R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the RPC) and positions which confer jurisdiction regardless of salary grade; Section 4(b) then extends jurisdiction to “other offenses or felonies” committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) when such offenses are committed in relation to their office.

Interpretation of Section 4 and Prior Decisions

Relying on prior decisions (notably People v. Sandiganbayan and Amante and Serana v. Sandiganbayan), the Court explained that Section 4(b) is not circumscribed by the narrow enumerations in Section 4(a) and does not impose a salary-grade limitation for offenses committed in relation to office where the official falls within the persons described in subsection (a). The Court rejected the Sandiganbayan’s narrower reading that the exceptions in subsection (a) apply only to the three enumerated statutes and that for all other offenses a public official must be salary grade 27 or higher for Sandiganbayan jurisdiction. The Court clarified that the enumerated positions (including members of sangguniang panlungsod) are among the public officials “mentioned in subsection (a)” and thus fall within the sweep of Section 4(b) when the offense is committed in relation to office.

Meaning of “Offense Committed in Relation to Office”

The Court reiterated controlling jurisprudence that an offense is committed “in relation to” office when it is intimately connected with or arises out of the accused’s official functions — i.e., the offense would not have been committed but for the accused’s holding of the public office, or the office is a significant element in the commission of the offense. The Court cited established cases illustrating that crimes such as murder or grave threats may fall within Sandiganbayan jurisdiction when the factual allegations show the crime was precipitated by or directly related to the official’s performance of duties.

Application to the Present Facts

Applying the foregoing legal framework, the Court observed that the Information charged Plaza with failing to liquidate cash advances he received by reason of his office and that the offense as alleged was committed in relation to his official functions as a member of the sangguniang panlungsod. As a member of the sangguniang panlungsod, Plaza is among the officials enumerated in Section 4(a)(1)(b) and therefore he is one of the public officials “mentioned in subsection (a)” for purposes of Section 4(b). Because the offense charged falls within

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-24693)

Facts of the Case

Respondent Rolando Plaza was a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Toledo City, Cebu at the time relevant to the case and was classified with Salary Grade 25.
Plaza was charged in the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 89 of Presidential Decree No. 1445 (The Auditing Code of the Philippines) for failure to liquidate cash advances.
The cash advances were received on December 19, 1995 in the total amount of Thirty-Three Thousand Pesos (P33,000.00).
The Information alleged that Plaza, as a high-ranking public officer and member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, obtained the cash advances by reason of his office, was duty bound to liquidate them within the period required by law, and willfully, unlawfully and criminally failed to liquidate them despite demands, to the damage and prejudice of the government.
The offense subject of the Information was described as having been committed on or about December 19, 1995 in Toledo City, Cebu.

Procedural History in the Sandiganbayan

Respondent Plaza filed a Motion to Dismiss dated April 7, 2005 before the Sandiganbayan.
The Sandiganbayan issued an Order dated April 12, 2005 directing the petitioner to submit its comment.
The petitioner filed its Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on April 19, 2005.
The Sandiganbayan promulgated a Resolution dated July 20, 2005 dismissing Criminal Case No. 27988 (People of the Philippines v. Rolando Plaza) for lack of jurisdiction, expressly ordering dismissal without prejudice to filing before the proper court.
The dispositive portion of the Sandiganbayan Resolution reads: “WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant case is hereby ordered dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to its filing in the proper court. SO ORDERED.”

Petition to the Supreme Court

The petitioner filed a petition dated September 2, 2005 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set aside the Sandiganbayan’s July 20, 2005 Resolution dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.
The core issue presented by the petition: whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod whose salary grade is below Grade 27 and who is charged with violation of The Auditing Code of the Philippines (P.D. No. 1445).

Petitioner’s Contentions

The petitioner asserted that the Sandiganbayan has criminal jurisdiction over public officials and employees enumerated under Section 4(a)(1) of P.D. 1606 (as amended by R.A. Nos. 7975 and 8249), irrespective of whether they occupy a position classified under Salary Grade 27 and above.
Petitioner argued that the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction extends not only to violations of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379 or felonies included in Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, but also to crimes committed in relation to office.
Petitioner challenged the Sandiganbayan’s reliance on the Court’s decision in Inding v. Sandiganbayan, contending that Inding did not confine the enumeration in Section 4(a)(1) of P.D. 1606, as amended, to only those cases involving R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379 or the specified Revised Penal Code provisions.
Petitioner maintained that the enumeration in Section 4(a)(1) applies equally to offenses committed in relation to public office.

Respondent Plaza’s Contentions

In his Comment dated November 30, 2005, Plaza argued that Section 4 of P.D. 1606, as amended, should be read such that the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction was defined first and exceptions specified thereafter.
Plaza contended that the Sandiganbayan correctly ruled that it has original jurisdiction only in limited circumstances:
- (a) where the accused is a public official with Salary Grade 27 and higher;
- (b) where the accused is a public official below Grade 27 but holds one of the specifically enumerated positions in Section 4(a)(1)(a)–(g) and the offense involves a violation of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379 or Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code; and
- (c) when the indictment involves offenses other than the three statutes mentioned, the general rule requiring Salary Grade 27 and higher for Sandiganbayan jurisdiction should apply.

Statutory Provision Applied (Section 4, P.D. 1606 as amended)

The Court applied Section 4 of P.D. 1606 as amended by Section 2 of R.A. 7975 (effective May 16, 1995) and subsequently amended by R.A. 8249 (effective February 5, 1997), because the Information was instituted on March 25, 2004 while the offense was alleged to have been committed on December 19, 1995.
Quoted and applied portions of Section 4 include:
- Section 4(a): The Sandiganbayan shall exercise original jurisdiction in violations of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code when one or more of the accused are officials occupying specified positions (regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher), and an extensive enumeration of positions is provided, including members of the sangguniang panlungsod.
- Section 4(b): Other offenses or felonies, whether simple or complexed with other crimes, committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) in relation to their office, fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
- Section 4(c): Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to certain Executive Orders.

Precedents and Authorities Relied Upon

People v. Sandiganbayan and Amante (G.R. No. 167304, Aug. 25, 2009, 597 SCRA 49) — treated as precedent with uncanny similarities to the present case (both respondents were members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Toledo City; amounts unliquidated differ