People of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) and Victoria Amante
G.R. No. 167304, August 25, 2009
FACTS:
Victoria Amante was a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Toledo City, Province of Cebu. On January 14, 1994, she obtained a cash advance for the defrayal of seminar expenses of the Committee on Health and Environmental Protection, which she headed but as of December 19, 1995 no liquidation was made. The investigation report of the Commission on Audit submitted to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas (OMB-Visayas) recommended for further investigation to ascertain whether appropriate charges could be filed against her. On May 21, 2004, an Information for Malversation of Public Funds was filed against her. However, the Sandiganbayan (Third Division) dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a Sangguniang Panlungsod member, a position with Salary Grade 26 who is charged with violation of The Auditing Code of the Philippines.
RULING:
Yes, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction.
Violation of The Auditing Code of the Philippines falls under Section 4(b) of R.A. 8249 which states that “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“. An offense is said to have been committed in relation to the office if the offense is “intimately connected” with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his official functions.
Public officials below Salary Grade 27 may still fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan provided that they hold the positions particularly and exclusively enumerated under Section 4(a) such as provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads; city mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers , and other city department heads; officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position as consul and higher; Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank; PNP chief superintendent and PNP officers of higher rank; City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor; and presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations.
Applying the above provisions, respondent Amante, being a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod at the time of the alleged commission of an offense in relation to her office, falls within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
NOTES:
- The principle set out in Montilla v. Hilario is that an offense may be considered as committed in relation to the accused’s office if “the offense cannot exist without the office” such that “the office [is] a constituent element of the crime x x x.”
Myline Cordial 
Leave a comment