[Back to Main]

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 136916.  December 14, 1999]

FLEURDELIZ B. ORGANO, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and the JAIL WARDEN OF MANILA, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Under Republic Act (RA) No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over accused public officials only when they occupy positions corresponding to Salary Grade 27 or higher.  Thus, RA 7080, insofar as it provided that all prosecutions for plunder fell within the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction, was impliedly repealed.

The Case

Before us is a Petition for Habeas Corpus under Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, praying that this Court direct the jail warden of Manila to produce the body of petitioner’s mother,  Lilia B. Organo, and to set her at liberty without delay.  Earlier, the accused had been detained, pursuant to a Warrant of Arrest issued by the Sandiganbayan[1] in connection with an Information[2] for plunder dated August 14, 1997 and docketed as Criminal Case No. 24100.  Petitioner maintains that the Warrant was invalid, because that court had no jurisdiction over her mother.

The Facts

The facts of the case, as summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General, are as follows:

"In an Information filed before the Sandiganbayan on August 15, 1997, Dominga S. Manalili, Teopisto A. Sapitula, Jose DP. Marcelo, Lilia B. Organo, Gil R. Erencio, Reynaldo S. Enriquez and Luis S. Se, Jr. were charged with the violation of RA No. 7080 (Plunder) committed as follows:

‘That on or about 05 November 1996, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Dominga S. Manalili, Teofisto A. Sapitula, Joel DP. Marcelo, Lilia B. Organo, being then public officers and taking advantage of their official positions as employees of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Region 7, Quezon City, and  Gil R. Erencio, Reynaldo S. Enriquez and Luis S. Se, Jr., conspiring, confabulating and confederating with one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally amass and acquire funds belonging to the National Government by  opening an unauthorized bank account with the Landbank of the Philippines, West Triangle Branch, Diliman, Quezon City, for and in behalf of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and deposit therein money belonging to the government of the Philippines, consisting of revenue tax payments then withdraw therefrom the sum of Pesos: One Hundred Ninety Three Million Five Hundred Sixty Five Thousand Seventy Nine & 64/100 (P193,565,079.64) Philippine Currency, between November, 1996 to February, 1997, without proper authority, through checks made payable to themselves and/or the sole proprietorship firms of the above-named private persons, thereby succeeding in misappropriating, converting, misusing and/or malversing said public funds tantamount to a raid on the public treasury, to their own personal gains, advantages and benefits, to the damage and prejudice of the government in the aforestated amount.

CONTRARY TO LAW.’

“The Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. 24100, was raffled to the First Division of the Sandiganbayan.

“On August 20, 1997, Lilia B. Organo filed a Motion to Quash Information for lack of jurisdiction and to defer the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

“Thereafter, with the creation of [the] 4th and 5th Divisions of the Sandiganbayan, the case was unloaded to the respondent court, 4th Division.

“On September 29, 1997, respondent court issued a warrant of arrest against the accused in Criminal Case No. 24100.

“On October 1, 1997, Organo filed an Urgent Motion to Recall and /or Quash Warrant of Arrest Pending Resolution on the Issue of Lack of Jurisdiction and Other Incidents.  The motion was opposed by the prosecution.

“In a Resolution dated November 20, 1997, respondent court denied Organo's motion.

“On December 9, 1997, Organo filed with the respondent court a Motion for Reconsideration of the November 20, 1997 Resolution.

“On April 28, 1998, respondent court denied Organo's Motion for Reconsideration ruling as follows:

‘The Motion for Reconsideration dated December 9, 1997 filed by accused Lilia Organo, through counsel, is hereby denied, there being no valid and compelling reason to set aside our Resolution dated November 28, 1997 denying her Motion to Quash Information for Lack of Jurisdiction.  Besides, accused movant is still a fugitive from justice and continues to evade arrest so that jurisdiction over her person has not yet been acquired by this Court.

‘Hence, movant Organo has no right to file with this Court her said Motion to Quash which was denied, and subsequently her subject Motion for Reconsideration.

‘Movant Organo should first surrender and place her person under the jurisdiction of this Court before she may file any further pleading with this Court.’

“With the denial of her Motion for Reconsideration, Organo filed before the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against herein respondents People of the Philippines and the 4th Division of the Sandiganbayan.  Petitioner alleges in the main that respondent court has no jurisdiction over a case of plunder if the officials or employees fall below salary grade 27 and that respondent court gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in failing to act on her motion to Quash before issuing a warrant of arrest.  x x x.

“With the warrant of arrest issued by the respondent court, Organo was arrested and detained by the National Bureau of Investigation in its detention cell.  Thereafter, she was transferred to the Manila City Jail.”[3]

The Issue

Petitioner submits this sole issue for the consideration of the Court:

“Does the Respondent Court, the Honorable Sandiganbayan, have jurisdiction over a case of plunder when none of the accused occupy Salary Grade ‘27’ or higher as provided under Republic Act No. 6758 x x x"[4]

The Court’s Ruling

The Petition is meritorious.

Sole Issue:  Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

Petitioner contends that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction to hear Criminal Case No. 24100 and to issue a warrant of arrest therein.  True, Section 3 of Republic Act 7080, the law penalizing plunder, states that “[u]ntil otherwise provided by law, all prosecutions under this Act shall be within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.”  When the crime charged was allegedly committed, however, already in effect were RA 7975[5] and RA 8249,[6] which confined the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction to public officials with Salary Grade 27 or higher.  Since not one of the accused occupies such position, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 24100.

We agree.  The Sandiganbayan’s  jurisdiction over petitioner’s mother and the other accused in Criminal Case No. 24100 has been resolved by the Supreme Court in  Lilia B. Organo v. Sandiganbayan.[7] In that case, we ruled that “the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the crime of plunder unless committed by public officials and employees occupying the positions with Salary Grade ‘27’ or higher, under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758) in relation to their office.”  The Court explained that “the crime of ‘plunder’ defined in Republic Act No. 7080, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, was provisionally placed within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan ‘until otherwise provided by law.’  Republic Act No. 8249, enacted on February 5, 1997, is the special law that provided for the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan ‘otherwise’ than that prescribed in Republic Act No. 7080.” (Italics supplied)

The Office of the Solicitor General argues, however, that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over cases of plunder, regardless of the public official’s salary grade.  Arguing that a special law will prevail over a statute or law of general application, it maintains that RA 8249 provides for the general jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, while RA 7080 is a special law  which deals with the crime of plunder.

Furthermore, it avers that a “close perusal of RA 8249 would show that the legislature did not intend to repeal or alter the provisions of RA 7080 as regards the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan in cases of plunder.  In fact, Section 4 (a) shows the instances wherein the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is limited to those where the accused public official occupies a Salary Grade of ‘27’ or above only involves ‘Violations of RA 3019’, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter 11, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code.