Macalino v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Felicito S. Macalino, Assistant Manager of the Treasury Division and Head of the Loans Administration & Insurance Section of the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC), was charged with estafa through falsification of official documents (Criminal Case No. 18022) and frustrated estafa through falsification of mercantile documents (Criminal Case No. 19268) before the Sandiganbayan, along with his wife, Liwayway S. Tan. The charges stemmed from alleged acts of falsifying documents to defraud the PNCC by diverting funds intended for Bankers Trust Company and International Corporate Bank (Interbank) to Wacker Marketing, owned by his wife. Procedural History: Petitioner pleaded not guilty. During trial, he moved to dismiss the cases, arguing that the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction over him because PNCC is not a government-controlled corporation with an original charter, thus he is not a public officer under R.A. No. 3019. The Sandiganbayan denied his motion to dismiss. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari assailing the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner, an employee of the PNCC, is a public officer within the coverage of R.A. No. 3019, as amended. Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over petitioner.
Ruling
The Court GRANTS the petition, SETS ASIDE the Sandiganbayan's order denying the motion to dismiss, and ORDERS the DISMISSAL of Criminal Cases Nos. 18022 and 19268 against petitioner and his wife.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether petitioner is a public officer under R.A. No. 3019: The Court ruled that petitioner is not a public officer within the coverage of R.A. No. 3019. The 1987 Constitution, specifically Article XI, Section 12 and Section 13, and Article IX-B, Section 2(1), limits the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and the scope of the civil service to government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. The PNCC, incorporated under the general law on corporations and not having an original charter, does not fall within this classification. Therefore, its employees, including the petitioner, are not considered public officers for the purposes of R.A. No. 3019. On Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction: Consequently, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the petitioner. The Court reiterated that the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction over a private individual is limited to instances where the private individual is charged as a co-principal, accomplice, or accessory of a public officer who is within the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction. Since the petitioner is not a public officer, the Sandiganbayan cannot exercise jurisdiction over him in these cases. The Court also noted that the cited cases by the respondent People of the Philippines were decided under the 1973 Constitution, which had a broader definition of public officers, and are therefore inapplicable under the 1987 Constitution. The jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action, which in this case, was governed by the 1987 Constitution.
Main Doctrine
An employee of a government-controlled corporation without an original charter is not a public officer within the coverage of R.A. No. 3019, and therefore, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over them, unless they are charged as co-principals, accomplices, or accessories of a public officer who is within the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction.