Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is perhaps one of the most often amended provision from the 1973 Constitution to RA 8249 of 1997. Before RA 8249, jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan was determined on the basis of the penalty imposable on the offense charged. Then, it was amended such that regardless of the penalty, so long as the offense charged was committed by a public officer, the Sandiganbayan was vested with jurisdiction. Under RA 8249, to determine whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction, lawyers must look into two (2) criteria, namely:

The nature of the offense and
The salary grade of the public official.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Exclusive:

Thus, Sec.4 of RA 8249 provides that the Sandiganbayan shall have original exclusive jurisdiction over:

1.) Violations of RA 3019 (Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Law);

2.) RA 1379 (Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Wealth);

3.) Crimes by public officers or employees embraced in Ch. II, Sec.2 Title VII, Book II of the RPC (Crimes committed by Public Officers) namely:

a. Direct Bribery (Art. 210 as amended by BP 871, May 29, 1985);

b. Indirect Bribery (Art. 211 as amended by BP 871, May 29, 1985);

c. Qualified Bribery (Art. 211-A as amended by RA 7659, Dec. 13, 1993);

d. Corruption of public officials (Art. 212)

where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:

A. Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 Republic Act No. 6758) specifically including:

(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers and other provincial department heads;

(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors engineers and other city department heads;

(d) Philippine Army and Air Force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank;

(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent or higher;

(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;

(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or -controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations;

B. Members of Congress and Officials thereof classified as Grade 27 and up under the Compensation and Classification Act of 1989;

C. Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to the provision of the Constitution;

D. Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the provision of the Constitution;

E. All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.

4.) Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed in relation to their office by the public officials and employees mentioned above;

5.) Civil and Criminal Cases filed pursuant to and in connection with EO 1, 2, 14 & 14-A issued in 1986

6.) OTHERS provided the accused belongs to SG 27 or higher:

a.) Violation of RA 6713 - Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards

b.) Violation of RA 7080 - THE PLUNDER LAW

c.) Violation of RA 7659 - The Heinous Crime Law

d.) RA 9160 - Violation of The Anti-Money Laundering Law when committed by a public officer

e.) PD 46 referred to as the gift-giving decree which makes it punishable for any official or employee to receive directly or indirectly and for the private person to give or offer to give any gift, present or other valuable thing on any occasion including Christmas, when such gift, present or valuable thing is given by reason of his official position, regardless of whether or not the same is for past favors or the giver hopes or expects to receive a favor or better treatment in the future from the public official or employee concerned in the discharge of his official functions. Included within the prohibition is the throwing of parties or entertainment in honor of the official or employee or his immediate relatives.

f.) PD 749 which grants immunity from prosecution to any person who voluntarily gives information about any violation of Art.210, 211 or 212 of the RPC, RA 3019, Sec.345 of the NIRC, Sec. 3604 of the Customs and Tariff Code and other provisions of the said Codes penalizing abuse or dishonesty on the part of the public officials concerned and other laws, rules and regulations penalizing graft, corruption and other forms of official abuse and who willingly testifies against the public official or employee subject to certain conditions.

It should be noted that private individuals can be sued in cases before the Sandiganbayan if they are alleged to be in conspiracy with the public officer.

Concurrent with Supreme Court:

Petitions for issuance of Writ of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunction and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction; Provided, jurisdiction is not exclusive of the Supreme Court

Quo Warranto arising in cases falling under said EO 1, 2, 14 & 14- A

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

The Sandiganbayan is vested with Appellate Jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of the RTC whether in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction over crimes and civil cases falling within the original exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but which were committed by public officers below Salary Grade 27.

Meaning of crime committed "in relation to their office"

● The offense need not be connected with the official duties. It is enough that it is in relation to office (Lecaroz vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-56384, March 22, 1984).

● A public official and employee commits a crime "in relation to their office" if the offense was intimately connected with the office of the offender and perpetuated while he is in the performance of his official function. Mere allegation in the information that the offense was commited by the accused public officer in relation to his office is not sufficient. What is controlling is the specific factual allegations in the information that would indicate the close intimacy between the discharge of the accused's official duties and the commission of the offense charged, in order to qualify the crime as having been committed in relation to public office (Lacson vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 128096, January 20, 1999).