Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 54 views

    Ricardo S. INDING vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

    Uploaded by

    Marinelle Aycee Moleta Perral
    This case involves Ricardo Inding, a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dapitan City, who was charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for faking buy-bust operations. Inding argued the Sandiganbayan did not have jurisdiction as his salary grade was below 27. The Sandiganbayan denied this, holding members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod have a salary grade of 27. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction, as the law in effect at the time of the offenses in 1997 gave the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod regardless of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ricardo S. INDING vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

    Uploaded by

    Marinelle Aycee Moleta Perral
    54 views3 pages
    This case involves Ricardo Inding, a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dapitan City, who was charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for faking buy-bust operations. Inding argued the Sandiganbayan did not have jurisdiction as his salary grade was below 27. The Sandiganbayan denied this, holding members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod have a salary grade of 27. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction, as the law in effect at the time of the offenses in 1997 gave the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod regardless of

    Original Title

    Ricardo S. INDING vs. SANDIGANBAYAN.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves Ricardo Inding, a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dapitan City, who was charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for faking buy-bust operations. Inding argued the Sandiganbayan did not have jurisdiction as his salary grade was below 27. The Sandiganbayan denied this, holding members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod have a salary grade of 27. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction, as the law in effect at the time of the offenses in 1997 gave the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod regardless of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    54 views3 pages

    Ricardo S. INDING vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

    Uploaded by

    Marinelle Aycee Moleta Perral
    This case involves Ricardo Inding, a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dapitan City, who was charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for faking buy-bust operations. Inding argued the Sandiganbayan did not have jurisdiction as his salary grade was below 27. The Sandiganbayan denied this, holding members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod have a salary grade of 27. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction, as the law in effect at the time of the offenses in 1997 gave the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod regardless of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Ricardo S. INDING vs.

    SANDIGANBAYAN

    FACTS:

    An Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan charging petitioner Inding, a member of the
    Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dapitan City, with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, while in
    the performance of his official functions, particularly in the operation against drug abuse, faked buy-bust
    operations against alleged pushers or users to enable him to claim or collect from the coffers of the city
    government a total amount of P30,500.00, as reimbursement for actual expenses incurred during the
    alleged buy-bust operations, knowing fully well that he had no participation in the said police
    operations.

    The Inding filed an Omnibus Motion for the dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction:

    He reasons that:

     That under Administrative Order No. 270, he is a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dapitan
    City with Salary Grade (SG) 25.
     That under Republic Act No. 7975, which amended Presidential Decree No. 1606, the Sandiganbayan
    exercises original jurisdiction to try cases involving crimes committed by officials of local
    government units only if such officials occupy positions with SG 27 or higher, based on Rep. Act No.
    6758, otherwise known as the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
     That under Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 7975, the RTC, not
    the Sandiganbayan, has original jurisdiction over the crime charged against him.

    The Office of the Special Prosecutor asserted that the petitioner was, at the time of the commission of
    the crime, a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dapitan City, Zamboanga del Norte, one of
    those public officers who, by express provision of Section 4 a.(1)(b) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by
    Rep. Act No. 7975, is classified as SG 27. Hence, the Sandiganbayan, not the RTC, has original jurisdiction
    over the case, regardless of his salary grade under Adm. Order No. 270.

    Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying the petitioners omnibus motion. It held that the Information
    alleged that the petitioner has a salary grade of 27 and that section 2 of Rep. Act No. 7975, which
    amended Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, provides that the petitioner, as a member of the Sangguniang
    Panlungsod of Dapitan City, has a salary grade of 27.

    The petitioner filed a Supplemental Motion to his omnibus motion, citing Rep. Act No. 8249 and the
    ruling of this Court in Organo v. Sandiganbayan, where it was declared that Rep. Act No. 8249, the latest
    amendment to the law creating the Sandiganbayan, collated the provisions on the exclusive jurisdiction
    of the Sandiganbayan, and that the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as a trial court was made
    to depend not on the penalty imposed by law on the crimes and offenses within its jurisdiction but on
    the rank and salary grade of accused government officials and employees.

    The petitioner was conditionally arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty.

    The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied.

    Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari. He argues that at the time the offense
    charged was allegedly committed, he was already occupying the position of Sangguniang Panlungsod
    Member I with SG 25. Hence, under Section 4 of Rep. Act No. 8249, amending Rep. Act No. 7975, it is
    the RTC and not the Sandiganbayan that has jurisdiction over the offense lodged against him.

    ISSUE:

    WON the Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over the petitioner, a member of the Sangguniang
    Panlungsod of Dapitan City, who was charged with violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019,
    otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

    HELD:

    YES.

    General rule:

    The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is to be determined by the law in force at the time of the
    institution of the action, not at the time of the commission of the crime.

    Exception:

    RA 7975 and RA 8249 expressly states that to determine the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan in cases
    involving violations of RA 3019, the reckoning period is the time of the commission of the offense.

    In this case, as gleaned from the Information filed in the Sandiganbayan, the crime charged was
    committed from the period of January 3, 1997 up to August 9, 1997. The applicable law, therefore, is
    Rep. Act No. 7975 (became effect May 16, 1995; RA 8249 only became effective Feb. 23, 1997). Section
    2 of Rep. Act No. 7975 expanded the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as defined in Section 4 of P.D.
    No. 1606.

    Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan shall exercise original jurisdiction in all cases
    involving:

    a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
    Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the
    Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the principal accused are officials occupying
    the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim
    capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:

    (1) X x x x x x x x Specifically including:


    (b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city
    treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads; xxxxxx

    Violations of RA 3019 committed by officials in the executive branch with SG 27 or higher and the
    officials specifically enumerated in (a) to (g) of Section 4 a. (1) of PD 1606 as amended by Section 2 of
    the RA 7975, regardless of their salary grades, likewise fall within the original jurisdiction of the
    Sandiganbayan.

    Except for those officials specifically enumerated in Sec. 4 (a) from letters (a) to (g), regardless of their
    salary grades, over whom the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction, all other public officials bellows SG 27
    shall be under the jurisdiction of the proper trial courts “where none of the principal accused are
    occupying positions corresponding to SG 27 or higher.”

    You might also like