Case Summary (G.R. No. 169004)
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses by public officials enumerated in Section 4(a)(1) of P.D. 1606, regardless of salary grade, when committed in relation to office.
- The enumeration under Section 4(a)(1) applies not only to graft-related statutes (R.A. 3019, R.A. 1379, Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, RPC) but likewise to other crimes in relation to public office.
- Inding v. Sandiganbayan did not confine Section 4(a)(1) to graft offenses exclusively.
Respondent’s Arguments
Plaza contended that:
a. Sandiganbayan jurisdiction is limited to officials of salary grade 27 and above, except those in the Section 4(a)(1)(a)–(g) enumeration when charged with R.A. 3019, R.A. 1379 or Title VII, RPC.
b. For offenses outside those statutes (e.g., The Auditing Code), the general rule (grade 27 or above) applies.
Governing Statutory Provisions
Section 4, P.D. 1606, as amended:
- 4(a): Exclusive jurisdiction over graft-related statutes when accused occupy listed positions (grade 27+ or enumerated key offices).
- 4(b): Jurisdiction over “other offenses or felonies … in relation to their office” committed by officials covered under 4(a).
Precedents and Jurisprudential Basis
- People v. Sandiganbayan and Amante (G.R. No. 167304, Aug. 25, 2009): Held that members of a city council (SG Panlungsod) fall under Section 4(b) for auditing-code offenses, even if below grade 27.
- Serana v. Sandiganbayan: Traces the evolution of Sandiganbayan jurisdiction from P.D. 1486 through P.D. 1606 and subsequent amendments.
- Inding v. Sandiganbayan: Confirmed that enumerated offices enjoy jurisdiction irrespective of grade for graft-related offenses, but did not exclude Section 4(b) cases.
- Montejo, Lacson, Alarilla: Define “offenses committed in relation to office” as those that cannot exist or would not have been committed but for the accused’s official functions.
Court’s Analysis on Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction
- Jurisdiction is determined at the time of filing (March 25, 2004), hence R.A. 8249’s amendments to P.D. 1606 apply.
- Under Section 4(b), any offense committed “in relation to” office by officials listed in Section 4(a)—including Sangguniang Panlungsod members—falls within the Sandiganbayan’s original jurisdiction.
- The Auditing Code offense clearly arose from Plaza’s official duties and required his status as council member; thus it is “in relation to office.”
Interpretation of “Offenses Committed in Relation to Office”
- Montilla v. Hilario principle: An offense is “in relation to office” when the office is a constituent element of the crime.
- Montejo exception: Even if the statute does not list office as an element, an offe
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 169004)
Facts
- Respondent Rolando Plaza was a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Toledo City, Cebu, holding salary grade 25 at the time of the alleged offense.
- On December 19, 1995, Plaza received cash advances totaling Thirty-Three Thousand Pesos (₱33,000.00) from the City Government of Toledo.
- He was charged in the Sandiganbayan with violating Section 89 of Presidential Decree No. 1445 (The Auditing Code of the Philippines) for willfully and unlawfully failing to liquidate the cash advances despite demands, to the damage and prejudice of the government.
Procedural History
- April 7, 2005: Respondent Plaza filed a Motion to Dismiss before the Sandiganbayan, asserting lack of jurisdiction.
- April 12, 2005: The Sandiganbayan ordered the People of the Philippines (petitioner) to comment on the Motion to Dismiss.
- April 19, 2005: Petitioner filed its Opposition.
- July 20, 2005: The Sandiganbayan (Third Division) promulgated a Resolution dismissing Criminal Case No. 27988 for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice to filing in the proper court.
- September 2, 2005: Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition with the Supreme Court seeking to reverse and set aside the dismissal.
Issue
- Whether the Sandiganbayan has original and exclusive jurisdiction to try a public official below salary grade 27—specifically, a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod—charged with violation of The Auditing Code of the Philippines (P.D. No. 1445).
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Section 4(a)(1) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. Nos. 7975 and 8249, grants Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over enumerated public officials—regardless of salary grade—“for crimes committed in relation to office.”
- The enumerations under Section 4(a)(1) are not confined to violations of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379, or Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code, but extend equally to other offenses committ