Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction Over Local Officials Violating the Auditing Code

The Supreme Court has settled a recurring question on which court should hear cases against local elected officials charged with failing to liquidate cash advances. In People v. Sandiganbayan and Plaza (G.R. No. 169004, September 15, 2010), the Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan—not the regular trial courts—has jurisdiction over a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, even if his salary grade is below 27, when the offense is committed in relation to his office.

The Case Before the Court

Rolando Plaza was a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Toledo City, Cebu, with Salary Grade 25. He was charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 89 of Presidential Decree No. 1445, the Auditing Code of the Philippines, for failing to liquidate cash advances totaling P33,000.00 that he received on December 19, 1995.

Plaza moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction because his salary grade was below 27. The Sandiganbayan agreed and dismissed the case, ruling that only public officials with Salary Grade 27 and above fall under its jurisdiction for offenses not involving the Anti-Graft Law, the Illegally Acquired Wealth Law, or the Revised Penal Code offenses enumerated in Section 4(a).

The prosecution elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

The Jurisdictional Framework

The Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction is defined by Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Republic Acts No. 7975 and 8249. The provision has two key parts:

Section 4(a) covers violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019), the Illegally Acquired Wealth Law (R.A. 1379), and specific offenses under the Revised Penal Code. Here, the law enumerates certain positions—including members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod—that fall under Sandiganbayan jurisdiction regardless of salary grade.

Section 4(b) covers "[o]ther offenses or felonies" committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) in relation to their office. This provision contains no salary grade qualification.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the prosecution, holding that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Plaza's case. The Court applied its earlier ruling in People v. Sandiganbayan and Amante (G.R. No. 167304, August 25, 2009), a case with nearly identical facts involving another Toledo City councilor.

The Court explained that the officials enumerated in Section 4(a)(1)—which expressly includes members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod—are covered by the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction regardless of salary grade. Since Section 4(b) refers to "public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a)," the same enumeration applies to offenses committed in relation to office.

The Court also clarified that its earlier decision in Inding v. Sandiganbayan did not limit the enumeration to cases involving only the three specific statutes mentioned in Section 4(a). Rather, the enumeration applies equally to Section 4(b) offenses.

When Is an Offense "In Relation to Office"?

The Court reiterated the test for determining whether an offense is committed in relation to office: the offense must be "intimately connected with the office" and perpetrated while the accused was in the performance, though improper or irregular, of official functions. There must be no personal motive to commit the crime, and the accused would not have committed it had he not held the office.

In Plaza's case, the cash advances were received by reason of his office, and his duty to liquidate them arose from his official position. The offense was therefore committed in relation to his office.

Practical Takeaways

• Local legislators are covered. Members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod and Sangguniang Panlalawigan are expressly enumerated in Section 4(a)(1) of P.D. 1606, as amended. Their cases belong in the Sandiganbayan regardless of salary grade.
• The "in relation to office" test is broad. An offense need not have public office as a legal element. It suffices that the offense is intimately connected with the accused's official functions and would not have been committed absent the office.
• Jurisdiction is determined at filing. The applicable law is the one in effect when the Information is filed, not when the offense was committed.
• Auditing Code violations by covered officials go to the Sandiganbayan. Failure to liquidate cash advances under P.D. 1445, when committed by an enumerated official in relation to office, falls under Section 4(b) jurisdiction.
• A dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is not an acquittal. The case may be refiled in the proper court, and the accused may still face trial.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.