Sandiganbayan

Reported by: Melquiades Aseron III

Civil Procedure under Atty. J. Parungo
August 15, 2015
 Mandate - 1973

1973 Constitution - Art. XIII, Sec. 5

The Batasang Pambansa shall create a special
court, to be known as Sandiganbayan, which
shall have jurisdiction over criminal and civil
cases involving graft and corrupt practices and
such other offenses committed by public
officers and employees, including those in
government-owned or controlled corporations,
in relation to their office as may be determined
by law.
 Mandate - 1987

1987 Constitution Art. XI, Sec. 4

The present anti-graft court known as the
Sandiganbayan shall continue to function
and exercise its jurisdiction as now or
hereafter may be provided by law. (Art. XI),
1987 Constitution.
 Statutory History of the
Sandiganbayan

PD No. 1486 implementing law creating the

Sandiganbayan
PD Nos. 1606 and 1629 revised/amended P.D. No. 1486
PD Nos. 1860 and 1861 further amendments
EO Nos. 101 and 184 further amendments
RA 10660 further amendments
 Composition

By appointment of the President, the

Sandiganbayan is composed of:
A Presiding Justice
Twenty (20) Associated Justices
Seven divisions of 3 justices each
Two justices shall constitute a quorum
 Qualifications

A justice of the Sandiganbayan must be:

1. A natural-born citizen of the Philippines
2. At least 40 years of age and no more
than 65 years of age
3. For at least ten years:
A judge of a court of record,
Engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines, or
Has held office requiring admission to the bar as a
pre-requisite for a like period
 Jurisdiction prior to 1997

Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan was determined on the

basis of the penalty imposable on the offense charged.
Scattered across different laws:.
PD Nos. 1822 and 1822-A exclusion of AFP members
BP Blg. 129, as amended by RA 7691 included
provisions on exclusive jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan
PD Nos. 1822, 1850 and 1952 jurisdiction on members
of the AFP and PNP
EO Nos. 14 and 14-A jurisdiction over cases involving
the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses
Jurisdiction from 1997 onwards

RA 8249 defined the jurisdiction of the

Sandiganbayan, such that the Sandiganbayan is
vested with jurisdiction so long as the offense
charged was committed by a public officer
regardless of the penalty.
Two criteria to determine jurisdiction:
1. The nature of the offense
2. The salary grade of the public official
1. Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction
by Nature of Offense

Exclusive jurisdiction over violations of:

1. RA 3019 (Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Law)
2. RA 1379 (Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Wealth)
3. Crimes under the Revised Penal Code (salary grade
conditions apply):
Bribery (Direct, Indirect, Qualified)
Corruption of public officials
4. EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 & 14-A, series of 1986 (laws on the
ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses)
 1(a) Exceptions to the Original and
Exclusive Jurisdiction by Nature of Offense

Exceptions under RA 10660 if the information:

1. does not allege any damage to the government or
any bribery
2. alleges damage to the government or bribery
arising from the same or closely related
transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding
1,000,000

In the cases above, the Regional Trial Court

shall have exclusive original jurisdiction
2. Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction
by Salary Grade

Exclusive jurisdiction over criminal and civil

cases involving:
Public officers classified as Grade 27 under RA
6758 (Compensation and Classification Act of
1989)
Members of the Judiciary and Constitutional
Commissions (without prejudice to the provisions
of the Constitution)
 Exclusive Jurisdiction
on Petitions

Petitions for issuance of Writs of:

1. Mandamus
2. Prohibition
3. Certiorari
4. Habeas corpus
5. Injunction
6. Other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction
Condition:
The jurisdiction is not exclusive of the Supreme Court
 Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate jurisdiction over the RTCs final

judgments, resolutions or orders over
criminal and civil cases, provided:
1. The criminal or civil case falls within the
original exclusive jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, and
2. It was committed by public officers below
Salary Grade 27
 Jurisdiction over
Private Individuals

The Sandiganbayan shall hear cases

against private individuals if they are
charged as co-principals, accomplices
or accessories to crime committed by
a public officer, provided the crime is
within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
 Office of the Ombudsman

Independent office created under the Constitution

Its primary function is to act on complaints filed
in any form or manner against public officials or
employees of the Government, or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations, and
shall, in appropriate cases, notify the complainants
of the action taken and the result thereof
Our Ombudsman is called the Tanodbayan
PROCEDURE
 1. Complaint

1. A complaint against a public officer is

received:
Directly by the Ombudsman
By the NBI
By some other government agency
 2(a) Review of complaint

2. The case is acted upon, either by:

dismissing it outright for want of palpable merit;
referring it to the respondent for comment;
indorsing it to the proper government office or agency
which has jurisdiction over the case;
forwarded to the appropriate office or official for
fact-finding investigation; or
Subjected to preliminary investigation.
2(b) Preliminary Investigation

2(b) If the case requires preliminary investigation,

it may be conducted by any of the following:
Ombudsman Graft Investigation and Prosecution
Officers;
Assistant Special Prosecutors;
Deputized Prosecutors;
Investigating Officials authorized by law to conduct
preliminary investigations or
Lawyers in the government service, so designated by
the Ombudsman.
 3. Ombudsman Resolution

The Ombudsman will forward the records of the

case together with the Resolution to the
designated authorities (the Sandiganbayan or the
Regional Trial Court, depending on which court
has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the
case).
 4. Court Proceedings

The Sandiganbayan or the Regional Trial Court, ,

depending on which court has original and
exclusive jurisdiction, will hear the case.
 Sample Case:
The Pork Barrel Scam
 PDAF Case - Background

The NBI conducted an investigation based on sworn

statements executed by Benhur Luy and Merlina Suas, in a
serious illegal detention case against Janet Lim Napoles
The sworn statements were corroborated by COA Special
Audits Office (SAO) Report No. 2012-03, which found highly
irregular transactions involving the Priority Development
Assistance Fund (PDAF) disbursed to NGOs for various
projects despite the absence of an appropriation law or
ordinance
6.156 Billion of taxpayer money was illegally spent on
778 projects by 82 NGOs between 2007 and 2009 (p.15,
COA SOA Report No. 2012-03)
 PDAF Case - Allegations

The NBI alleged a modus operandi masterminded by

Janet Lim Napoles and groups of Lawmakers where the
latter used their PDAF in illegal transactions with Janet
Lim Napoles NGOs to enable themselves to profit from
the simulated disbursements and utilization of their
PDAF
Crimes: Plunder, malversation, direct bribery, and other
graft and corrupt practices
Accused:
Lawmakers Senators Ramon Revilla Jr., Juan Ponce Enrile,
Jinggoy Estrada, Gregorio Honasan II, among others
Janet Lim Napoles (private individual)
 PDAF Case - Process

1. Luy and Suas executed sworn statements which alleged

conspiracy between Napoles and several lawmakers
2. The NBI conducted an investigation based on the sworn
statements
3. The NBI then referred their findings to the Ombudsman
4. The Ombudsman will then review the findings and issue
a resolution
5. The resolution is submitted to the Sandiganbayan
6. The Sandiganbayan hears the case