Azarcon vs.

Sandiganbayan Issues:WON the SB gas jurisdiction over the subj matter of the controversyWON the pet can be considered a public officer by reason of his being designated bythe VIR as depositary of distrained property Facts: Azarcon owned and operated an earth-moving business, hauling dirt and ore.His services contracted by Paper industries Corp of Phil PICOP Engaged services of sub-contractors like Ancla whose trucks were left at petspremises. In May 1983, Warrant of Distraint of Personal Prop was issued by the MainOffice of the BIR addressed to the Reg Director Batausa commanding him todistraint the goods, chattels or effects of other personal property of Ancla,subcontractor of Azarcon and delinquent taxpayer. The warrant of garnishment was issued to Azarcon ordering him to surrenter,transmit, or remit to BIT the property in his possession. Warrant was received by Azarcon in June 1985 Azarcon signed the Receipt for goods, articles and things seized under authof the National Internal Revenue which stated that he promised to faithfullykeep, preserve, to protect goods articles and things seized xxx and willproduce and deliver all said goods, articles etc upon the order of any court inthe Phill or upon demand of Commr of Internal Revenue or any agent of BIR. Azarcon wrote letter in 1985, November which stated that Azarcon ceased hisoperations and surreptitiously withdrew his equipment from custody. Incidentally pet reported taking of truck to security manager of PICOP andrequested him to prevent truck being taken out of the PICOP concession. Bythe time the order was given, it was too late. In 1986, Calo, Revenue Doc Processor of Revenue Region sent a progressreport about the surreptitious taking of the dump truck and that Ancla wasrenting out the truck to a certain contractor, Cueva, at PICOP, the samecompany which engaged pet earth moving services. She suggested that awarrant of garnishment be reissued against Mr. Cueva (PICOP) for whateveramount of rental is due from Ancla until he has paid his tax liabilities. Instead of doing so, Batausa filed a complaint against Pet. Prov Fiscal forwarded to Tanodbayan and then prelim invest was conducted. Ancla and Azarcon were charged before SB of malversation 217 in relationwith 222. The charge states that since the private individual voluntarily offered himself as custodian of the truck and has become resp and accountable for said propto satisfy the tax liability, the truck became public prop and the valuethereof as public fun. Pet defense: 1. was not present during the prelim invest 2. not a publicofficer SB ruled that pet is guilty of malversation SC HELD: On jurisdiction: SB has no jurisdiction over the individual. Jurisdiction must appearclearly from the statue law or it will not held to exist. jurisdiction determined by the law at the time of the commencement of theaction. Applicable prov. PD 1601 amended by 1861 but prior to their amendment byRA 7975. SB jurisdiction: a. Violations of 3019, anti-graft and corrupt practices b.other offenses by public officers and employees. C. In case private indiv arecharged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with public officers oremployees, they shall be tried jointly with the public officers and employees. Therefore, jurisdiction of SB is hinged on WON Azarcon is a public officer bythe meaning of law. On status of Azarcon: He is still a private individual. crime doesnt charge pet as co-principal, accomplice or accessory to a publicofficer. ART 203 states what a public officer is. He doesnt fall within theambit of the definition. Even when the pet, in signing the receipt for the truck constructivelydistrained by the BIR, commenced to take part in an activity constitutingpublic functions, he still may not be deemed a public officer. Not by popularelection, not by appointment by direct provision of law or competent auth. SOL GEN: takes case of US vs. Rastollo which ruled that the power todesignate a private person who has actual possession of a distrained prop asa depository of distrained prop is necessarily implied in the BIRs power toplace the prop of a delinquent tax payer in distrained as provided of the NIRCCODE. SC disagrees. Different facts of the cases. Judicial deposit vs. BIRadministrative act of effecting constructive destraint.

While the BIR had auth to require pet to sign a receipt for the distrainedtruck, the NIRC did not grant it the power to appoint Pet a public officer. Although sec 206 of the NIRC authorizes the BIR to effect a constructivedistraint by requiring any person to preserve distrained prop there is noprovision in the NIRC constituting such person a public officer by reason of such requirement. The BIRs power authorizing a private indiv to act asdepositary cannot be stretched to include the power to appoint him as apublic officer. Consideration of ART. 222 private indiv as public officer. SC ruled that aprivate indiv who has in his charge any of the public funds or propenumerated and commits any of the acts defined should likewise bepenelized with the same penalty meted to erring public officers. Nowhere inthe said provision is it expressed or implied that a private indiv be deemed apublic officer. Azarcon and Ancla, his co-accused, are both private indivs. Judgment annulled and set aside. Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 116033 February 26, 1997 Panganiban, J. FACTS: Alfredo Azarcon owned and operated a hauling business. Occasionally, he engaged the services of sub-contractors like Jaime Ancla whose trucks were left at the formers premises A Warrant of Distraint of Personal Property was issued by the Main Office of the BIR addressed to the Regional Director or his authorized representative of Revenue Region 10,Butuan City commanding the latter to distraint the goods, chattels or effects and other personal property of Ancla, a sub-contractor of accused Azarcon and, a delinquent taxpayer. The Warrant of Garnishment was issued to Azarcon ordering him to transfer, surrender, transmit and/or remit to BIR the property in his possession owned by taxpayer Ancla. Azarcon, in signing the Receipt for Goods, Articles, and Things Seized Under Authority of the National Internal Revenue, assumed the undertakings specified in the receipt.Subsequently, however, Ancla took out the distrained truck from Azarcons custody. For this reason, Azarcon was charged before the Sandiganbayan with the crime of malversation of public funds or property under Article 217 in relation to Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code. Can Azarcon be considered a public officer by reason of his being designated by the BIR as a depositary of distrained property? HELD: Article 223 of the RPC defines a public officer as any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election, or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent, or subordinate official, of any rank or classes. Azarcon obviously may not be deemed authorized by popular election. Neither can his designation by the BIR as a custodian of distrained property qualifies as appointment by direct provision of law, or by competent authority. While it is true that Sec. 206 of the NIRC, as pointed out by the prosecution, authorizes the BIR to effect a constructive distraint by requiring any person to preserve a distrained property there is no provision in the NIRC constituting such person a public officer by reason of such requirement. The BIRs power authorizing a private individual to act as a depositary cannot be stretched to include the power to appoint him as a public officer. The charge against Azarcon should forthwith be dismissed.