BAYANI SUBIDO, JR. AND RENE PARINA, PETITIONERS, VS.THE HONORABLE SANDIGAN-BAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Subido versus Sandiganbayan

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, filed by Bayani Subido, Junior and Rene Parina against the Sandiganbayan and the People of the Philippines. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to set aside, on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, the Sandiganbayan's resolution denying their motion to quash, its order denying reconsideration, and its order entering a plea of not guilty for them in a criminal case for arbitrary detention under Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code. The case matters because it fixes the reckoning point for the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, clarifies the treatment of a co-accused whose salary grade is below twenty-seven, and settles that the law reorganizing the Sandiganbayan is procedural and curative, not penal, and may be applied retroactively.

Procedural History

An information for arbitrary detention was filed against the petitioners before the Sandiganbayan. Arraignment was originally set for the twenty-eighth of August 1995, but on that date the petitioners filed a motion to quash, later supplemented, arguing that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the offense or over their persons. The prosecution opposed. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash and the supplement in its resolution of the twenty-fifth of October 1995, and set arraignment for the tenth of November 1995. The petitioners moved for reconsideration; the Sandiganbayan denied it and, since the petitioners objected to arraignment, entered a plea of not guilty for them, set pre-trial, and noted their reservation to seek redress from the Supreme Court. The petitioners then filed this special civil action for certiorari, and the Supreme Court gave due course to the petition and required memoranda from the parties.

Facts

On or about the twenty-fifth of June 1992, in Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, the petitioners caused the issuance and implementation of a warrant of arrest against James J. Maksimuk. Subido was then a Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, and Parina was a Special Agent of the same Bureau. The prosecution alleged that they knew the Bureau's decision of the sixth of June 1991 requiring Maksimuk's deportation had not yet become final and executory because a motion for reconsideration was pending, and that Maksimuk was detained for forty-three days, causing him undue injury.

The information was dated the seventeenth of July 1995 and filed on the twenty-eighth of July 1995. Republic Act Number 7975, amending Section 4 of Presidential Decree Number 1606, took effect on the sixteenth of May 1995, after the alleged crime but before the information was filed. By the time of filing, Subido had been separated from the service, and Parina held a position classified below salary grade twenty-seven.

The petitioners argued that the new law governed and that, since Subido was already a private person and Parina's position was below grade twenty-seven, the case belonged in the Regional Trial Court. They also invoked the rule that penal laws are strictly construed against the State and are not retroactive. The prosecution countered that jurisdiction depends on the position of the accused at the time the offense was committed, not at the time of filing.

Issues

• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the offense charged and over the persons of the petitioners.
• Whether or not the reckoning point for the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction is the time of the commission of the offense rather than the time of the filing of the information.
• Whether or not the fact that petitioner Parina held a position below salary grade twenty-seven removes the case from the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction.
• Whether or not Republic Act Number 7975 may be given retroactive effect.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Presidential Decree Number 1606, as amended by Republic Act Number 7975, provides:

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) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including: x x x (5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade "27" and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. b. Other offenses or felonies committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) of this section in relation to their office. c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A.

This provision supplies the grade requirement and the phrase "at the time of the commission of the offense," which the Court treats as the reckoning point.

The same Section 4 continues:

In cases where none of the principal accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade "27" or higher, as prescribed in said Republic Act No. 6758, or PNP officers occupying the rank of superintendent or higher, or their equivalent, exclusive 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 jurisdiction as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.

This clause explains why Parina's low salary grade does not matter: the test is whether none of the principal accused occupies a high position, and here Subido does.

Section 4 of Presidential Decree Number 1606, prior to its amendment by Republic Act Number 7975, provided:

SEC. 4. Jurisdiction. -- The Sandiganbayan shall exercise: (a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in all cases involving: (1) violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code; (2) other offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, whether simple or complexed with other crimes, where the penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years, or a fine of P6,000.00: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that offenses or felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the penalty prescribed by law does not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment of six (6) years or a fine of P6,000.00 shall be tried by the proper Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court.

This is the version the Court holds applicable, because the crime was committed before the amendatory law took effect.

Section 7 of Republic Act Number 7975 provides:

Sec. 7. Upon the effectivity of this Act, all criminal cases in which trial has not begun in the Sandiganbayan shall be referred to the proper courts.

This transitional clause bears on how pending cases are handled under the new law.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court holds that the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction. The information charged arbitrary detention committed "while in the performance of their official functions," or in relation to their office, and because the detention lasted forty-three days the prescribed penalty is prision mayor, which exceeds the threshold in the old Section 4. The Court quotes the old provision and applies its settled rule that it is not enough that the penalty be higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six years, or a fine of six thousand pesos; it is likewise necessary that the offense be committed in relation to the office.

On the second issue, the Court holds that the reckoning point is the time of the commission of the crime. This is plain from the last clause of the opening sentence of paragraph (a) of Section 4 as amended, which speaks of officials occupying the listed positions "at the time of the commission of the offense." Subido never denied that as Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation at the time of the crime he was classified in a position even higher than grade twenty-seven, so the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the crime charged against him.

On the third issue, the Court holds that Parina's lower salary grade is of no moment. He is prosecuted as a co-conspirator of Subido, a principal accused who held a position higher than grade twenty-seven. The Court quotes the clause vesting jurisdiction in the lower courts only "In cases where none of the principal accused are occupying the positions corresponding to salary grade '27' or higher," and concludes that the condition is absent here.

On the fourth issue, the Court holds that the prohibition against retroactive penal laws is misplaced, because Republic Act Number 7975 is not a penal law. Penal laws are those that prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violation, or those that define crimes, treat of their nature, and provide for their punishment. Republic Act Number 7975, which amends the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, mode of appeal, and other procedural matters, is a procedural law, and the petitioners themselves suggest it is curative or remedial. As a procedural and curative statute, it may validly be given retroactive effect, there being no impairment of contractual or vested rights.

Doctrine

For the Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officers in relation to their office, two elements must concur: the penalty prescribed by law must be higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six years, or a fine of six thousand pesos, and the offense must have been committed in relation to the office. The reckoning point for the grade requirement under Section 4 of Presidential Decree Number 1606, as amended by Republic Act Number 7975, is the time of the commission of the offense, not the time of the filing of the information. Where at least one principal accused occupied a position of salary grade twenty-seven or higher at the time of the commission of the offense, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction even over a co-accused whose own position is below that grade, because the law divests the Sandiganbayan only where none of the principal accused occupies such a position. Finally, Republic Act Number 7975 is a procedural and curative statute, not a penal law, and may be applied retroactively absent impairment of contractual or vested rights.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, the questioned resolution and orders of the Sandiganbayan were affirmed, and costs were taxed against the petitioners.

Remember This

Memorize the line that jurisdiction is reckoned at the time of the commission of the offense, and that a co-accused below salary grade twenty-seven is still covered so long as a principal accused held grade twenty-seven or higher. Examiners use this case on Sandiganbayan jurisdiction, on the retroactivity of procedural and curative statutes, and on the distinction between penal and procedural laws.