People v. Amante
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Victoria Amante, a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Toledo City, obtained a cash advance of ₱71,095.00 on January 14, 1994, to defray seminar expenses. As of December 19, 1995, no liquidation was made. A demand letter was issued on December 22, 1995, requiring settlement within seventy-two hours. The Commission on Audit submitted an investigation report recommending further investigation for possible charges under P.D. No. 1445. The Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) recommended the filing of an Information for Malversation of Public Funds, and the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) found probable cause. Procedural History: An Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan on May 21, 2004, accusing Amante of violating Section 89 of P.D. No. 1445. Amante filed a Motion to Defer Arraignment and Motion for Reinvestigation, arguing that she had already liquidated/refunded the balance and that the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction because her position (Sangguniang Panlungsod member) was Salary Grade 26, below the Grade 27 threshold specified in Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 for certain offenses. The OSP opposed, contending that the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over local officials and that Amante's claim of settlement was a matter of defense. The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Petition: The People of the Philippines filed a petition for review on certiorari, questioning whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a Sangguniang Panlungsod member charged with a crime committed in relation to office, but not a violation of R.A. 3019, R.A. 1379, or specific Revised Penal Code offenses.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod charged with a violation of The Auditing Code of the Philippines, committed in relation to office. Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction based on the accused's Salary Grade and the nature of the offense charged.
Ruling
The Petition is granted. The Resolution of the Sandiganbayan dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction is nullified and set aside. The case is remanded to the Sandiganbayan for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over a Sangguniang Panlungsod member charged with an offense in relation to office: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. The applicable law is Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 8249. While Section 4(a) enumerates specific offenses (R.A. 3019, R.A. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code) requiring certain salary grades or specific enumerated positions for Sandiganbayan jurisdiction, Section 4(b) covers "Other offenses or felonies, whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) of this section in relation to their office." The Court clarified that the enumeration in Section 4(a)(1) includes city mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, and other city department heads, regardless of their salary grade, when charged with the offenses listed in Section 4(a). However, for offenses falling under Section 4(b), the public officials mentioned in subsection (a) are subject to Sandiganbayan jurisdiction. The offense of violating The Auditing Code of the Philippines, as charged against respondent Amante, was committed in relation to her office as a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod. Therefore, it falls under Section 4(b), and the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over her as she is one of the public officials mentioned in subsection (a). On the Sandiganbayan's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction: The Sandiganbayan erred in dismissing the case. The Sandiganbayan's reasoning, based on its interpretation of Inding v. Sandiganbayan, was that Section 4(a) exceptions (enumerated positions regardless of salary grade) applied only to the specific offenses listed therein, and for offenses under Section 4(b) (committed in relation to office), the Salary Grade 27 requirement generally applied. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that Section 4(b) does not impose a salary grade qualification for the public officials mentioned in subsection (a). The Court emphasized that the phrase "public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a)" refers to the list of positions provided therein, including members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod. The crucial factor for Section 4(b) jurisdiction is that the offense was committed in relation to the office of such public official. The Court cited Lacson v. Executive Secretary and Alarilla v. Sandiganbayan to support the interpretation that "other offenses or felonies" under Section 4(b) are broad and include crimes committed in relation to office, with the official position being the determinant of jurisdiction, not necessarily the salary grade, for those enumerated in subsection (a). The offense of failing to liquidate a cash advance is intimately connected with the performance of official functions and thus falls under Section 4(b).
Main Doctrine
A member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, even if occupying a position with Salary Grade 26, falls within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan when charged with offenses or felonies committed in relation to their office, as provided under Section 4(b) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 8249.