MACALINO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN G.R. Nos. 140199-200. February 6, 2002

Facts: On September 16, 1992, two informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan against petitioner,being then the Assistant Manager of the Treasury Division and the Head of the Loans Administration & Insurance Section of the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC), a government-controlled corporation, and his wife, Liwayway S. Tan, charging them with estafa through falsification of official documents and frustrated estafa through falsification of mercantile documents. Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges.However, during the initial presentation of evidence for the defense, petitioner moved for leave to file a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over him since he is not a public officer because the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC), formerly the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP), is not a government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter. On August 5, 1999, the Sandiganbayan promulgated a resolution denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of merit.

Issue: Whether petitioner, an employee of the PNCC, is a public officer within the coverage of R. A. No. 3019, as amended.

Ruling: Inasmuch as the PNCC has no original charter as it was incorporated under the general law on corporations, it follows inevitably that petitioner is not a public officer within the coverage of R. A. No. 3019, as amended. Thus, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over him. The only instance when the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a private individual is when the complaint charges him either as a co-principal, accomplice or accessory of a public officer who has been charged with a crime within the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan.

GARCIA VS. MIRO, ET AL. G.R. No. 148944. February 5, 2003

Facts: City Mayor Garcia was charged by Ombudsman Special Prosecution Officer Jesus Rodrigo Tagaan for violation of the Anti-Graft Law as a result of his having entered into a contract with F.E. Zuellig for the supply of asphalt batching plant for three years. The joint affidavits of State Auditors Cabreros and Quejada alleged that petitioner entered into the contract without available funds appropriated to cover the expenditure in violation of Sections 85 and 86 of P.D. 1445 or the State Audit Code of the Phil.; that petitioner exceeded the authority granted him by the Sangguniang Panlungsod; and that the contract is manifestly disadvantageous to the City. Note however that thereafter, Special Prosecution Officer Tagaan resigned from his office and his name was withdrawn as complainant in the case. Instead of filing a counter-affidavit, Garcia filed with the Supreme Court a petition to prohibit the Ombudsman from conducting the preliminary investigation on the ground that there is no sufficient complaint.

Issue: Whether or not the complaint/affidavits filed against Garcia is sufficient in form or manner.

Ruling: For purposes of initiating a preliminary investigation before the Office of the Ombudsman, a complaint in any form or manner is sufficient. The Constitution states that the Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the government. In Almonte vs. Vasquez, 244 SCRA 286, we held that even unverified and anonymous letters may suffice to start an investigation. The Office of the Ombudsman is different from the other investigatory and prosecutory agencies of the government because those subject to its jurisdiction are public officials who, through official pressure and influence, can quash, delay, or dismiss investigations against them. The joint affidavits of State Auditors Cabreros and Quejada contain allegations specific enough for petitioner to prepare his evidence and counter-arguments.

Honasan vs.The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors Of the Department of Justice G.R.No. 159747 April 13,2004

Facts: An affidavit-complaint was filed before the DOJ by Mantillano charging Senator Honasan and others for the offense of coup d’etat. Consequently Honasan questioned the OMB-DOJ Circular which according to Honasan the source of the purported power of the DOJ to conduct preliminary investigation,since there was no publication of the said circular.

Issue: Whether the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation because the petitioner is a public officer with salary grade 31 (Grade 27 or Higher) thereby falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandigan Bayan.

Ruling: No. The DOJ Panel need not be authorized nor deputized by the Ombudsman to conduct the preliminary investigation for complaints filed with it because the DOJ's authority to act as the principal law agency of the government and investigate the commission of crimes under the Revised Penal Code is derived from the Revised Administrative Code which had been held in the Natividad case13 as not being contrary to the Constitution. Thus, there is not even a need to delegate the conduct of the preliminary investigation to an agency which has the jurisdiction to do so in the first place. However, the Ombudsman may assert its primary jurisdiction at any stage of the investigation. Whether or not the offense is within exclusive jurisdiction or not will not resolve the present petition so as not to pre-empt the result of the investigation conducted by the DOJ Panel.