People v. Plaza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Rolando Plaza, a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Toledo City, Cebu, with salary grade 25, was charged with violation of Section 89 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1445 (The Auditing Code of the Philippines) for failure to liquidate cash advances totaling ₱33,000.00 received on December 19, 1995. Procedural History: Respondent Plaza filed a Motion to Dismiss with the Sandiganbayan, arguing lack of jurisdiction. The People of the Philippines filed an Opposition. The Sandiganbayan, in its Resolution dated July 20, 2005, dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice to its filing before the proper court. The Petition: The People of the Philippines filed a petition for review on certiorari, seeking to reverse the Sandiganbayan's Resolution, contending that the Sandiganbayan has criminal jurisdiction over such cases.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod charged with violation of The Auditing Code of the Philippines, regardless of salary grade. Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, considering the applicability of exceptions and the interpretation of Section 4(a)(1) and 4(b) of P.D. 1606, as amended.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of the Sandiganbayan (Third Division) dated July 20, 2005, 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 member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod charged with violation of The Auditing Code of the Philippines: The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that the jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is determined at the time of the institution of the action, not at the time of the commission of the offense. In this case, the offense was committed on December 19, 1995, but the Information was filed on March 25, 2004, making R.A. 8249 the governing law. Section 4(b) of P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. 8249, provides that the Sandiganbayan shall exercise original jurisdiction over other offenses or felonies, whether simple or complexed with other crimes, committed by public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) in relation to their office. Respondent Plaza, as a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, falls under the enumeration in Section 4(a)(1)(b) as a city official, and the offense of failure to liquidate cash advances is intimately connected with his office, thus falling under Section 4(b). On the applicability of exceptions and the interpretation of Section 4(a)(1) and 4(b) of P.D. 1606, as amended, and the dismissal of the case: The Court clarified that the exception in R.A. 7975 and R.A. 8249, which limits Sandiganbayan jurisdiction for violations of R.A. 3019, R.A. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code to officials with salary grade 27 and above (unless specifically enumerated), is not applicable to violations of The Auditing Code of the Philippines. The offense involved herein is a violation of The Auditing Code of the Philippines, which falls under Section 4(b) of P.D. 1606, as amended. For offenses under Section 4(b), the determining factor for Sandiganbayan jurisdiction is whether the offense was committed in relation to the public official's office, not solely the salary grade, provided the official is among those mentioned in subsection (a). The Court emphasized that for offenses under Section 4(a), public office is an essential element, whereas under Section 4(b), it is sufficient that the offenses were committed in relation to the office. The phrase 'offenses committed in relation to office' is broad and includes offenses intimately connected with the office and perpetrated while performing official functions, even if improperly or irregularly, without personal motive, and which would not have been committed had the accused not held office.
Main Doctrine
The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officials in relation to their office, even if the offense is a violation of The Auditing Code of the Philippines and the official's salary grade is below 27, provided the offense is intimately connected with their office.