Adaza v. Sandiganbayan

G.R. NO.
154886 | July 28, 2005

ADAZA v SANDIGANBAYAN
CARPIO-MORALES, J.
FACTS:
This is a case for certiorari under Rule 65 of the RoC assailing the June 19, 2002
decision and July 3, 2002 resolution finding the petitioner Ludwig Adaza GBRD of
FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS penalised under ART 172, in relation to ART 171,
PAR 1 of the PRC.
Sometime in 1995, DPWH of Zamboanga awarded Parents and Teachers Assoc (PTA) of
Manawan Nat’l High School a contract for the construction of a school bldg consisting of 2
classrooms at an agreed consideration of Php 111,319.50.
The project was completed on June 24, 1997 but the PTA failed to receive the last
instalment payment thereof in the amount of Php 20,847.17. Upon verification, PTA President
Mejorada was informed by Penaranda, (cashier) that the check for the said amount had been
released to the petitioner.
Confronted w/ disbursement voucher no B-1019707309 issued by the DPWH in the
amount of Php 20,847.17 for payment to him as PTA president. However, Mejorada detected
that the signature above his printed name acknowledging receipt of the check was not his. And
he noticed that the petitioner's signature was affixed on the voucher.
Asked by Mejorada to explain the circumstances, Penaranda related that one afternoon
in July 1997, petitioner approached her for the check but it was not and could not be released
yet w/o Mejorada affixing his signature. Penaranda then related that the petitioner offered to
take a disbursement voucher and have it signed by Mejorada. When the petitioner returned the
voucher later that day, the check already bore a signature purporting to be that of Mejorada. The
cash was allegedly uncashed by ARISTELA AZADA (wife of petitioner) on July 22, 1997.
Dec 16, 1997, Mejorada repaired to NBI where he filed a complaint against petitioner
and his wife and executed a Sworn Statement. The complaint, for FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC
DOCUMENT, was forwarded to the Ombudsman. During pendency of the case Mejorada
executed an Affidavit of Desistance alleging that his and PTA’s claim has been fully paid by sps.
Adaza and requesting that the cases against them be dismissed.
July 31, 1998, the Office of Ombudsman issued a resolution finding probable cause
against petitioner and Aristela. Petitioner was charged with 2 information before
Sandiganbayan. 1. Falsification of Public Document by counterfeiting therein the
signature of Mejorada 2. Conspiring w/ Aristela to falsify a public document.
Petitioner and Aristela filed a MR finding probable cause against them which was denied.
On arraignment, Petitioner and Aristela pleaded NOT GUILTY.
June 19, 2002, Sandi found petitioner GUILTY in the 1st case and ACQUITTED him
and Aristela in the 2nd case for insufficiency of evidence.
Petitioner then presented a petition for certiorari faulting Sandi for having committed
GAD. On Oct 29, 2002, Atty Felipe Romollo entered its appearance for petitioner raising the
additional arguments;
1. Alleging that SANDIGANBAYAN HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER OFFENSE CHARGE OF
FALSIFICATION OF DOCU UNDER ART 172 PAR. 1 IN RELATION TO ART 171 PAR. 1 OF
THE RPC
2. The alleged offence was not committed in relation to the office of the Municipal
Mayor which is outside the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
ISSUE:
Whether Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offence charged.
RULING:
For an offense to fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan the ff
requisites must concur:
1. the offense committed is a violation of;
a. RA 3019 (anti graft & corrupt practices)
b. RA 1379 (law on ill gotten wealth)
c. Chap 2, Sec 2, Title 7, Book2 of the PRC
d. other offenses/felonies whether simple or complex crimes
e. offender is a public official or employee
f. offence committed in relation to the office
In the case at bar, the charge against the petitioner falls under SEC 4 Par B of RA 8249.
For the Sandi to have exclusive jurisdiction, it is essential that the facts showing the
intimate relations between the office of the offender and the discharge of duties be
alleged in the information.
Although herein petitioner was described in the information as "a public officer being
then the Mayor with salary grade 27 of Jose Dalman, Zamboanga del Norte," there was no
allegation showing that the act of falsication of public document attributed to him was
intimately connected to the duties of his office as mayor to bring the case within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Neither was there any allegation to show how he made
use of his position as mayor to facilitate the commission of the crimes charged.
It is thus apparent that for purposes of acquisition of jurisdiction by the Sandiganbayan,
the requirement imposed by RA 8249 that the offense be "committed in relation" to the
offender's office is entirely distinct from the concept of "taking advantage of one's position" as
provided under ART 171 and 172 of the RPC.
However, the element of “taking advantage of one’s position” under RPC becomes
relevant only in the present case, not for the purpose of determining whether the Sandi
has jurisdiction, but for the purpose of determining whether petitioner, if he is held to be
liable at all under ART 171 and 172.
The Sandiganbayan is declared bereft of jurisdiction over the criminal case filed against
the petitioner, the prosecution is not precluded from filing the appropriate charge against him
before the proper court.
Wherefore, petition is GRANTED. The decision of Sandiganbayan are SET ASIDE and
declare NULL and VOID for lack of jurisdiction.

Adaza v. Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adaza v. Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Adaza v. Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. NO.

154886 | July 28, 2005

You might also like