No, The Sandiganbayan Has No Jurisdiction

Re; Prosecution of offeses
UY vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. Nos. 105965-70, March 20, 2001
FACTS: Petitioner George Uy was the deputy comptroller of the Philippine Navy designated to act on
behalf of Captain Fernandez, the latters supervisor, on matters relating the activities of the Fiscal
Control Branch. Six informations for Estafa through falsification of official documents and one
information for violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 (anti-graft and corrupt practices act) were filed with
the Sandiganbayan against petitioner Uy and 19 other accused. The Sandiganbayan recommended that
the infomation be withdrawn against some of the accused after a comprehensive investigation.
Petitioner filed a motion to quash contending that it is the Court Martial and not the Sandiganbayan
which has jurisdiction over the offense charged or the person of the accused.
ISSUE: WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the subject criminal cases or the person of the
petitioner.
WON the prosecutory power of the Ombudsman extends only to cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan and that the Ombudsman has no authority to prosecute cases falling within the
jurisdiction of regular courts.
HELD:
No, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction.
The fundamental rule is that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the statute in force at the time
of the commencement of the action. Thus, Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the petitioner at the
time of the filing of the informations and as now prescribed by law. RA 8249, the latest amendment of
PD 1606 creating the Sandiganbayan provides that such will have jurisdiction over violations of RA
3019 of members of the Philippine Army and air force colonels, naval captains and all officers of
higher rank. In the case at bar, while the petitioner is charged with violation of RA 3018, his position
as Lieutenant Commander of the Philippine Navy is a rank lower than naval captains and all officers
of higher rank. It must be noted that both the nature of the offense and the position occupied by the
accused are conditions sine qua non before Sandiganbayan can validly take cognizance of the case.
Thus, regular courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the person of the accused as provided by the
Sandiganbayan Law which states that in cases where none of the accused are occupying positions
corresponding to Salary Grade 27 or higher, exclusive original jurisdiction shall be vested in the
proper RTC, MTC, MCTC or METC pursuant to BP Blg. 129. Consequently, it is the RTC which has
jurisdiction over the offense charged since under Section 9 of RA 3019, the commission of any
violation of said law shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than six years and one month to
fifteen years. The indictment of the petitioner therefore cannot fall within the jurisdiction of the MTC,
METC or MCTC.
No, the power of the Ombudsman is not an exclusive authority but rather a shared or concurrent
authority between the Ombudsman and other investigative agencies of the government in prosecution
of cases. The Ombudsman is clothed with authority to conduct preliminary investigation and to
prosecute all criminal cases involving public officers and employees, not only those within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, but those within the jurisdiction of the regular courts as well. The
power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. It
pertains to any act or omission of any public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to
be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. The law does not make a distinction between cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and those cognizable by regular courts. It has been held that the
clause "any illegal act or omission of any public official" is broad enough to embrace all kinds of
malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance committed by public officers and employees during their
tenure of office. The exercise by the Ombudsman of his primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by
the Sandiganbayan is not incompatible with the discharge of his duty to investigate and prosecute
other offenses committed by public officers and employees. The prosecution of offenses committed by
public officers and employees is one of the most important functions of the Ombudsman. In passing
RA 6770, the Congress deliberately endowed the Ombudsman with such power to make him a more
active and effective agent of the people in ensuring accountability in public office. Even a perusal of
the law (PD 1630) originally creating the Office of theOmbudsman then (to be known as the
Tanodbayan), and the amendatory laws issued subsequent thereto will show that, at its inception, the
Office of theOmbudsman was already vested with the power to investigate and prosecute civil and
criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan and even the regular courts.

No, The Sandiganbayan Has No Jurisdiction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

No, The Sandiganbayan Has No Jurisdiction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

No, The Sandiganbayan Has No Jurisdiction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Re; Prosecution of offeses

UY vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. Nos. 105965-70, March 20, 2001

You might also like