People vs.

Sandiganbayan
GR No. 167304, August 25, 2009

Relevance: Jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan

Facts: The accused was Victoria Amante, member of Sangguniang Panlunsod of Toledo City,
Cebu. On January 14, 1994, she was granted a cash advance in the amount of ₱71,095.00
to defray for the seminar expenses of the Committee on Health and Environmental
Protection, which she headed. As of December 19, 1995, or after almost 2 years, she was
not able to liquidate the her cash advance, thus City Auditor Tulibao issued a demand
letter to her asking to liquidate her cash advance within 72 hours from receipt of same
demand letter. In 1996, the COA submitted an investigation report to the Office of the
Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas recommending further investigation to determine if
proper charges can be filed against Amante under PD 1445. In 1999, there was a
resolution to file a case of Malversation of Public Funds against Amante. In 2001, the
Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) prepared a memorandum finding a probable
cause to indict Amante. In 2004, the OSP filed an information with the Sandiganbayan
accusing Amante of violating Section 89 of PD 1445.

Amante moved for deferment of arraignment and asked for reinvestigation of the case
due to her liquidation submitted to the Accounting Department of Toledo City, and that
she was holding a Salary Grade of 26, while the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan is SG 27
and above. The OSP contended however that she was a member of Sanggunian of
Toledo, therefore falling under those enumerated in Section 4 of RA 8249 (An Act
defining the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan) and that the language of the law is too plain
and unambiguous that it did not make any distinction as to the salary grade of city local
officials/heads. The Sandiganbayan thus dismissed the case stating that it has no
jurisdiction since the accused is not holder of SG 27 position.

Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a case involving a Sangguniang
Panlungsod member where the crime charged is one committed in relation to office, but
not for violation of RA 3019, RA 1379 or any of the felonies mentioned in Chapter II,
Section 2, Title VII of the RPC.

Held: Section 4(a) of PD 1606 provides for jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan enumerating public
officials with SG 27 violating RA 3019, RA 1379 or any of the felonies mentioned in
Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the RPC. On the other hand, Section 4(b) thereof
provides that “Other offenses or felonies committed by public officials and employees
mentioned in subsection (a) of this section in relation to their office.” Thus, Subsection
B does not require that the SG of public official be SG 27 as that required in Subsection
A, so long as the offense committed is in relation to public office. The term other offenses
or felonies is too broad so as to include the case of murder provided that they are
committed in relation to public office. And by the term in relation to public office means
that the “offense cannot exist without the office” or “intimately connected with the
accused’s respective office and was perpetrated while they were in the performance,
though improper or irregular, of their official functions”. Moreover, it is beyond clarity
that the same provision of Section 4(b) does not mention any qualification as to the
public officials involved. It simply stated, public officials and employees mentioned in
subsection (a) of the same section. Therefore, it refers to those public officials with Salary
Grade 27 and above, except those specifically enumerated. General rule: jurisdiction of
a court to try a criminal case is to be determined at the time of the institution of the
action, not at the time of the commission of the offense, except when expressly provided
for by law.