You are on page 1of 3

UY vs.

Sandiganbayan
G.R. Nos. 105965-70, March 20, 2001
DOCTRINE: (1) 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.
(2) 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.
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 petitioner was said to
have signed a P.O. stating that the unit received 1,000 pieces of seal rings when in fact,
only 100 were ordered. The Sandiganbayan recommended that the infomations 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withdrawn against some of the accused after a comprehensive investigation.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. Petitioner further contends that RA 1850 which provides for the jurisdiction of
court martial should govern in this case
The court ruled that: It is the court-martial, not the Sandiganbayan, which has jurisdiction
to try petitioner since he was a regular officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
and fell squarely under Article 2 of the Articles of War mentioned in Section 1(b) of P.D.
1850, Providing for the trial by courts-martial of members of the Integrated National
Police and further defining the jurisdiction of courts-martial over members of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines
As to the violations of Republic Act No. 3019, the petitioner does not fall within the rank
requirement stated in Section 4 of the Sandiganbayan Law, thus, exclusive jurisdiction
over petitioner is vested in the regular courts ,as amended by R.A. No. 8249, which
states that In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding
to Salary Grade 27 or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or
military and PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be
vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and
municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions
as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.

In this connection, it is the prosecutor, not the Ombudsman, who has the authority to file
the corresponding information/s against Uy in the RTC. The Ombudsman exercises
prosecutorial powers only in cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
In February 20, 2000, a motion for clarification which in fact appeared to be a partial
motion for reconsideration was filed by the Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor,
which was then denied. The instant case is a Motion for Further Clarification filed
by Ombudsman Aniano Desierto of the Court's ruling in its decision dated August 9,
1999 and resolution dated February 22, 2000.
ISSUE: (1) WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the subject criminal cases or
the person of the petitioner
(2) 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: (1) No, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction.
(2) 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.
RATIO: (1) 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 incase 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.
(2) 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.

You might also like