THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 116033. February 26, 1997]

ALFREDO L. AZARCON, petitioner, vs. SAND GAN!A"AN, #EO#LE OF $%E #% L ## NES a&' (OSE C. !A$A)SA, respondents. DEC S ON
#ANGAN !AN, J.*

Does the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over a private individual who is charged with malversation o public unds as a principal a ter the said individual had been designated by the !ureau o Internal Revenue as a custodian o distrained property" Did such accused become a public o icer and there ore subject to the gra t court#s jurisdiction as a conse$uence o such designation by the !IR" These are the main $uestions in the instant petition or review o respondent Sandiganbayan#s Decision in (riminal (ase No) &*+,- promulgated on .arch /0 &11*0 convicting petitioner o malversation o public unds and property0 and Resolution dated 2une +-0 &11*0 denying his motion or new trial or reconsideration thereo )
%&' %+'

$+e Fa,-. 3etitioner 4l redo 45arcon owned and operated an earth6moving business0 hauling 7dirt and ore)8 His services were contracted by the 3aper Industries (orporation o the 3hilippines :3I(O3; at its concession in .angagoy0 Surigao del Sur) Occasionally0 he engaged the services o sub6contractors li<e 2aime 4ncla whose truc<s were le t at the ormer#s premises) =rom this set o circumstances arose the present controversy)
%9' %*'

x x x It appears that on May 25, 1983, a Warrant of Distraint of Personal Property was issued y the Main !ffi"e of the #ureau of Internal $e%enue &#I$' addressed to the $e(ional Dire"tor &)ose #atausa' or his authori*ed representati%e of $e%enue $e(ion 1+, #utuan ,ity "o--andin( the latter to distraint the (oods, "hattels or effe"ts and other personal property of )ai-e .n"la, a su /"ontra"tor of a""used .*ar"on and, a delin0uent taxpayer1 2he Warrant of 3arnish-ent was issued to a""used .lfredo .*ar"on orderin( hi- to transfer, surrender, trans-it and4or re-it to #I$ the property in his possession owned y taxpayer .n"la1 2he Warrant of 3arnish-ent was re"ei%ed y a""used .*ar"on on )une 15, 198516
758

3etitioner 45arcon0 in signing the 7Receipt or >oods0 4rticles0 and Things Sei5ed ?nder 4uthority o the National Internal Revenue08 assumed the underta<ings speci ied in the receipt the contents o which are reproduced as ollows@

&I', the undersi(ned, here y a"9nowled(e to ha%e re"ei%ed fro- .-adeo :1 ;an Die(o, an Internal $e%enue !ffi"er, #ureau of Internal $e%enue of the Philippines, the followin( des"ri ed (oods, arti"les, and thin(s<
=ind of property Motor nu- er ,hassis ?o1 ?u- er of ,CD ,olor !wned #y /// /// /// /// /// /// Isu*u du-p tru"9 >12+/229598 ;P@A5+/1552BB+ E #lue Mr1 )ai-e .n"la

the sa-e ha%in( een this day sei*ed and left in &-y' possession pendin( in%esti(ation y the ,o--issioner of Internal $e%enue or his duly authori*ed representati%e1 &I' further pro-ise that &I' will faithfully 9eep, preser%e, and, to the est of &-y' a ility, prote"t said (oods, arti"les, and thin(s sei*ed fro- defa"e-ent, de-ar"ation, lea9a(e, loss, or destru"tion in any -annerF that &I' will neither alter nor re-o%e, nor per-it others to alter or re-o%e or dispose of the sa-e in any -anner without the express authority of the ,o--issioner of Internal $e%enueF and that &I' will produ"e and deli%er all of said (oods, arti"les, and thin(s upon the order of any "ourt of the Philippines, or upon de-and of the ,o--issioner of Internal $e%enue or any authori*ed offi"er or a(ent of the #ureau of Internal $e%enue16
7E8

Subse$uently0 4l redo 45arcon wrote a letter dated November +&0 &1/A to the !IR#s Regional Director or Revenue Region &- !0 !utuan (ity stating that

x x x while I ha%e -ade representations to retain possession of the property and si(ned a re"eipt of the sa-e, it appears now that Mr1 )ai-e .n"la intends to "ease his operations with us1 2his is e%iden"ed y the fa"t that so-eti-e in .u(ust, 1985 he surreptitiously withdrew his e0uip-ent fro- -y "ustody1 x x x In this "onne"tion, -ay I therefore for-ally infor- you that it is -y desire to i--ediately relin0uish whate%er responsi ilities I ha%e o%er the a o%e/-entioned property y %irtue of the re"eipt I ha%e si(ned1 2his "an"ellation shall ta9e effe"t i--ediately1 x x x 16
758

Incidentally0 the petitioner reported the ta<ing o the truc< to the security manager o 3I(O30 .r) Del in 3anelo0 and re$uested him to prevent this truc< rom being ta<en out o the 3I(O3 concession) !y the time the order to bar the truc<#s eBit was given0 however0 it was too late)
%/'

Regional Director !atausa responded in a letter dated .ay +C0 &1/,0 to wit@

.n analysis of the do"u-ents exe"uted y you re%eals that while you are &si"' in possession of the du-p tru"9 owned y ).IM> .?,D., you %oluntarily assu-ed the

lia ilities of safe9eepin( and preser%in( the unit in ehalf of the #ureau of Internal $e%enue1 2his is "learly indi"ated in the pro%isions of the Warrant of 3arnish-ent whi"h you ha%e si(ned, o li(ed and "o--itted to surrender and transfer to this offi"e1 Gour failure therefore, to o ser%e said pro%isions does not relie%e you of your responsi ility16
798

Therea ter0 the Sandiganbayan ound that

!n 11 )une 198E, Mrs1 Marilyn 21 ,alo, $e%enue Do"u-ent Pro"essor of $e%enue $e(ion 1+ #, #utuan ,ity, sent a pro(ress report to the ,hief of the ,olle"tion #ran"h of the surreptitious ta9in( of the du-p tru"9 and that .n"la was rentin( out the tru"9 to a "ertain "ontra"tor y the na-e of !s"ar ,ue%a at PI,!P &Paper Industries ,orporation of the Philippines, the sa-e "o-pany whi"h en(a(ed petitionerHs earth -o%in( ser%i"es', Man(a(oy, ;uri(ao del ;ur1 ;he also su((ested that if the report were true, a warrant of (arnish-ent e reissued a(ainst Mr1 ,ue%a for whate%er a-ount of rental is due fro- .n"la until su"h ti-e as the latterHs tax lia ilities shall e dee-ed satisfied1 x x x Iowe%er, instead of doin( so, Dire"tor #atausa filed a letter/ "o-plaint a(ainst the &herein Petitioner' and .n"la on 22 )anuary 1988, or after -ore than one year had elapsed fro- the ti-e of Mrs1 ,aloHs report16
71+8

3rovincial =iscal 3reteBtato .ontenegro 7 orwarded the records o the complaint B B B to the O ice o the Tanodbayan8 on .ay &/0 &1//) He was deputi5ed Tanodbayan prosecutor and granted authority to conduct preliminary investigation on 4ugust ++0 &1//0 in a letter by Special 3rosecutor Raul >on5ales approved by Ombudsman :Tanodbayan; (onrado Vas$ue5)
%&&'

4long with his co6accused 2aime 4ncla0 petitioner 45arcon was charged be ore the Sandiganbayan with the crime o malversation o public unds or property under 4rticle +&C in relation to 4rticle +++ o the Revised 3enal (ode :R3(; in the ollowing In ormation iled on 2anuary &+0 &11-0 by Special 3rosecution O icer Victor 3ascual@
%&+'

2hat on or a out )une 15, 1985, in the Muni"ipality of #isli(, Pro%in"e of ;uri(ao del ;ur, Philippines, and within the Jurisdi"tion of this Ionora le ,ourt, a""used .lfredo D1 .*ar"on, a pri%ate indi%idual ut who, in his "apa"ity as depository4ad-inistrator of property sei*ed or deposited y the #ureau of Internal $e%enue, ha%in( %oluntarily offered hi-self to a"t as "ustodian of one Isu*u Du-ptru"9 &si"' with Motor ?o1 >12+/22958, ,hasis ?o1 ;P@A 5+/1552BB+, and nu- er ,CD/E and was authori*ed to e su"h under the authority of the #ureau of Internal $e%enue, has e"o-e a responsi le and a""ounta le offi"er and said -otor %ehi"le ha%in( een sei*ed fro- )ai-e ,1 .n"la in satisfa"tion of his tax lia ility in the total su- of >I3I2G 2I!A;.?D >I3I2 IA?D$>D 2II$2G !?> P>;!; and 5941++ &P8+,831159' e"a-e a pu li" property and the %alue thereof as pu li" fund, with (ra%e a use of "onfiden"e and "onspirin( and "onfederatin( with said

)ai-e ,1 .n"la, li9ewise, a pri%ate indi%idual, did then and there wilfully, &si"' unlawfully and feloniously -isappropriate, -isapply and "on%ert to his personal use and enefit the afore-entioned -otor %ehi"le or the %alue thereof in the aforestated a-ount, y then and there allowin( a""used )ai-e ,1 .n"la to re-o%e, retrie%e, withdraw and tow away the said Isu*u Du-ptru"9 &si"' with the authority, "onsent and 9nowled(e of the #ureau of Internal $e%enue, #utuan ,ity, to the da-a(e and preJudi"e of the (o%ern-ent in the a-ount of P8+,831159 in a for- of unsatisfied tax lia ility1 ,!?2$.$G 2! D.W16
The petitioner iled a motion or reinvestigation be ore the Sandiganbayan on .ay &*0 &11&0 alleging that@ :&; the petitioner never appeared in the preliminary investigationD and :+; the petitioner was not a public o icer0 hence a doubt eBists as to why he was being charged with malversation under 4rticle +&C o the Revised 3enal (ode) The Sandiganbayan granted the motion or reinvestigation on .ay ++0 &11&) 4 ter the reinvestigation0 Special 3rosecution O icer Roger !erbano0 Sr)0 recommended the 7withdrawal o the in ormation8 but was 7overruled by the Ombudsman)8
%&9' %&*' %&A' %&,'

4 motion to dismiss was iled by petitioner on .arch +A0 &11+ on the ground that the Sandiganbayan did not have jurisdiction over the person o the petitioner since he was not a public o icer) On .ay &/0 &11+0 the Sandiganbayan denied the motion)
%&C' %&/'

Ehen the prosecution inished presenting its evidence0 the petitioner then iled a motion or leave to ile demurrer to evidence which was denied on November &,0 &11+0 7 or being without merit)8 The petitioner then commenced and inished presenting his evidence on =ebruary &A0 &119)
%&1'

$+e Re./o&'e&- Cour-0. De,1.1o& On .arch /0 &11*0 respondent Sandiganbayan rendered a Decision0 the dispositive portion o which reads@
%+-' %+&'

WI>$>K!$>, the ,ourt finds a""used .lfredo .*ar"on y De%a 3AID2G eyond reasona le dou t as prin"ipal of Mal%ersation of Pu li" Kunds defined and penali*ed under .rti"le 215 in relation to .rti"le 222 of the $e%ised Penal ,ode and, applyin( the Indeter-inate ;enten"e Daw, and in %iew of the -iti(atin( "ir"u-stan"e of %oluntary surrender, the ,ourt here y senten"es the a""used to suffer the penalty of i-prison-ent ran(in( fro- 2>? &1+' G>.$; and !?> &1' D.G of prision mayor in its -axi-u- period to ;>:>?2>>? &15' G>.$;, K!A$ &B' M!?2I; and !?> &1' D.G of Reclusion Temporal1 2o inde-nify the #ureau of Internal $e%enue the a-ount of P8+,831159F to pay a fine in the sa-e a-ount without su sidiary

i-prison-ent in "ase of insol%en"yF to suffer spe"ial perpetual dis0ualifi"ationF and, to pay the "osts1 ,onsiderin( that a""used )ai-e .n"la has not yet een rou(ht within the Jurisdi"tion of this ,ourt up to this date, let this "ase e ar"hi%ed as a(ainst hi- without preJudi"e to its re%i%al in the e%ent of his arrest or %oluntary su -ission to the Jurisdi"tion of this ,ourt1 ;! !$D>$>D16
3etitioner0 through new counsel0 iled a motion or new trial or reconsideration on .arch +90 &11*0 which was denied by the Sandiganbayan in its Resolution dated December +0 &11*)
%++' %+9'

Hence0 this petition) $+e ..ue. The petitioner submits the ollowing reasons or the reversal o the Sandiganbayan#s assailed Decision and Resolution@

I1 2he ;andi(an ayan does not ha%e Jurisdi"tion o%er "ri-es "o--itted solely y pri%ate indi%iduals1 II1 In any e%ent, e%en assu-in( ar(uendo that the appoint-ent of a pri%ate indi%idual as a "ustodian or a depositary of distrained property is suffi"ient to "on%ert su"h indi%idual into a pu li" offi"er, the petitioner "annot still e "onsidered a pu li" offi"er e"ause<
[A]

2here is no pro%ision in the ?ational Internal $e%enue ,ode whi"h authori*es the #ureau of Internal $e%enue to "onstitute pri%ate indi%iduals as depositaries of distrained properties1
[!]

Iis appoint-ent as a depositary was not y %irtue of a dire"t pro%ision of law, or y ele"tion or y appoint-ent y a "o-petent authority1 III1 ?o proof was presented durin( trial to pro%e that the distrained %ehi"le was a"tually owned y the a""used )ai-e .n"laF "onse0uently, the (o%ern-entHs ri(ht to the su Je"t property has not een esta lished1

I:1 2he pro"edure pro%ided for in the ?ational Internal $e%enue ,ode "on"ernin( the disposition of distrained property was not followed y the #1I1$1, hen"e the distraint of personal property elon(in( to )ai-e ,1 .n"la and found alle(edly to e in the possession of the petitioner is therefore in%alid1 :1 2he #1I1$1 has only itself to la-e for not pro-ptly sellin( the distrained property of a""used )ai-e ,1 .n"la in order to reali*e the a-ount of a"9 taxes owed y )ai-e ,1 .n"la to the #ureau16
72B8

In ine0 the undamental issue is whether the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the subject matter o the controversy) (orollary to this is the $uestion o whether petitioner can be considered a public o icer by reason o his being designated by the !ureau o Internal Revenue as a depositary o distrained property) $+e Cour-0. Ru21&3 The petition is meritorious) Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan It is hornboo< doctrine that in order 7:to; ascertain whether a court has jurisdiction or not0 the provisions o the law should be in$uired into)8 =urthermore0 7the jurisdiction o the court must appear clearly rom the statute law or it will not be held to eBist) It cannot be presumed or implied)8 4nd or this purpose in criminal cases0 7the jurisdiction o a court is determined by the law at the time o commencement o the action)8
%+A' %+,' %+C'

In this case0 the action was instituted with the iling o this in ormation on 2anuary &+0 &11-D hence0 the applicable statutory provisions are those o 3)D) No) &,-,0 as amended by 3)D) No) &/,& on .arch +90 &1/90 but prior to their amendment by R)4) No) C1CA on .ay &,0 &11A) 4t that time0 Section * o 3)D) No) &,-, provided that@

;>,1 B1 Jurisdiction1 // 2he ;andi(an ayan shall exer"ise< &a' >x"lusi%e ori(inal Jurisdi"tion in all "ases in%ol%in(< &1' :iolations of $epu li" ."t ?o1 3+19, as a-ended, otherwise 9nown as the .nti/ 3raft and ,orrupt Pra"ti"es ."t, $epu li" ."t ?o1 1359, and ,hapter II, ;e"tion 2, 2itle :II of the $e%ised Penal ,odeF &2' !ther offenses or felonies "o--itted y pu li" offi"ers and e-ployees in relation to their offi"e, in"ludin( those e-ployed in (o%ern-ent/owned or "ontrolled "orporations, whether si-ple or "o-plexed with other "ri-es, where the penalty

pres"ri ed y law is hi(her than prision "orre""ional or i-prison-ent for six &E' years, or a fine of PE,+++1++< P$!:ID>D, I!W>:>$, that offenses or felonies -entioned in this para(raph where the penalty pres"ri ed y law does not ex"eed prision correccional or i-prison-ent for six &E' years or a fine of PE,+++1++ shall e tried y the proper $e(ional 2rial ,ourt, Metropolitan 2rial ,ourt, Muni"ipal 2rial ,ourt and Muni"ipal ,ir"uit 2rial ,ourt1
BBB BBB BBB

In "ase pri%ate indi%iduals are "har(ed as "o/prin"ipals, a""o-pli"es or a""essories with the pu li" offi"ers or e-ployees, in"ludin( those e-ployed in (o%ern-ent/ owned or "ontrolled "orporations, they shall e tried Jointly with said pu li" offi"ers and e-ployees1
BBB BBB B B B)8

The oregoing provisions une$uivocally speci y the only instances when the Sandiganbayan will have jurisdiction over a private individual0 i)e) when the complaint charges the private individual either as a co6principal0 accomplice or accessory o a public o icer or employee who has been charged with a crime within its jurisdiction) Azarcon: A Public Officer or A Private Individual? The In ormation does not charge petitioner 45arcon o being a co6principal0 accomplice or accessory to a public o icer committing an o ense under the Sandiganbayan#s jurisdiction) Thus0 unless petitioner be proven a public o icer0 the Sandiganbayan will have no jurisdiction over the crime charged) 4rticle +-9 o the R3( determines who are public o icers@

Who are public officers. -- Kor the purpose of applyin( the pro%isions of this and the pre"edin( titles of the oo9, any person who, y dire"t pro%ision of the law, popular ele"tion, popular ele"tion or appoint-ent y "o-petent authority, shall ta9e part in the perfor-an"e of pu li" fun"tions in the 3o%ern-ent of the Philippine Islands, or shall perfor- in said 3o%ern-ent or in any of its ran"hes pu li" duties as an e-ployee, a(ent, or su ordinate offi"ial, of any ran9 or "lasses, shall e dee-ed to e a pu li" offi"er16
Thus0

&to' e a public officer, one -ust e // &1' Taking part in the perfor-an"e of public functions in the (o%ern-ent, or

Performing in said 3o%ern-ent or any of its ran"hes public duties as an employee, agent, or subordinate official, of any ran9 or "lassF and &2' 2hat his authority to ta9e part in the perfor-an"e of pu li" fun"tions or to perforpu li" duties -ust e // a1 y dire"t pro%ision of the law, or 1 y popular ele"tion, or
"1 y appoint-ent y "o-petent authority16
7288

>ranting arguendo that the petitioner0 in signing the receipt or the truc< constructively distrained by the !IR0 commenced to ta<e part in an activity constituting public unctions0 he obviously may not be deemed authori5ed by popular election) The neBt logical $uery is whether petitioner#s designation by the !IR as a custodian o distrained property $uali ies as appointment by direct provision o law0 or by competent authority) Ee answer in the negative)
%+1'

The Solicitor >eneral contends that the !IR0 in e ecting constructive distraint over the truc< allegedly owned by 2aime 4ncla0 and in re$uiring the petitioner 4l redo 45arcon who was in possession thereo to sign a pro forma receipt or it0 e ectively 7designated8 petitioner a depositary and0 hence0 citing U.S. vs. Rastrollo, a public o icer) This is based on the theory that
%9-' %9&'

&t'he power to desi(nate a pri%ate person who has a"tual possession of a distrained property as a depository of distrained property is ne"essarily i-plied in the #I$Hs power to pla"e the property of a delin0uent tax payer &si"' in distraint as pro%ided for under ;e"tions 2+E, 2+5 and 2+8 &for-erly ;e"tions 3+3, 3+B and 3+5' of the ?ational Internal $e%enue ,ode, &?I$,' x x x16
7328

Ee disagree) The case o U.S. vs. Rastrollo is not applicable to the case be ore us simply because the acts therein are not identical0 similar or analogous to those obtaining here) Ehile the cited case involved a judicial deposit o the proceeds o the sale o attached property in the hands o the debtor0 the case at bench dealt with the !IR#s administrative act o e ecting constructive distraint over alleged property o taBpayer 4ncla in relation to his bac< taBes0 property which was received by petitioner 45arcon) In the cited case0 it was clearly within the scope o that court#s jurisdiction and judicial power to constitute the judicial deposit and give 7the depositary a character e$uivalent to that o a public o icial)8 However0 in the instant case0 while the !IR had authority to re$uire petitioner 45arcon to sign a receipt or the distrained truc<0 the NIR( did not grant it power to appoint 45arcon a public o icer)
%99'

It is aBiomatic in our constitutional ramewor<0 which mandates a limited government0 that its branches and administrative agencies eBercise only that power delegated to them as 7de ined either in the (onstitution or in legislation or in

both)8 Thus0 although the 7appointing power is the eBclusive prerogative o the 3resident0 B B B8 the $uantum o powers possessed by an administrative agency orming part o the eBecutive branch will still be limited to that 7con erred eBpressly or by necessary or air implication8 in its enabling act) Hence0 7:a;n administrative o icer0 it has been held0 has only such powers as are eBpressly granted to him and those necessarily implied in the eBercise thereo )8 (orollarily0 implied powers 7are those which are necessarily included in0 and are there ore o lesser degree than the power granted) It cannot eBtend to other matters not embraced therein0 nor are not incidental thereto)8 =or to so eBtend the statutory grant o power 7would be an encroachment on powers eBpressly lodged in (ongress by our (onstitution)8 It is true that Sec) +-, o the NIR(0 as pointed out by the prosecution0 authori5es the !IR to e ect a constructive distraint by re$uiring 7any person8 to preserve a distrained property0 thus@
%9*' %9A' %9,' %9C' %9/'

7B B B B B B

BBB

2he "onstru"ti%e distraint of personal property shall e effe"ted y re0uirin( the taxpayer or any person ha%in( possession or "ontrol of su"h property to si(n a re"eipt "o%erin( the property distrained and o li(ate hi-self to preser%e the sa-e inta"t and unaltered and not to dispose of the sa-e in any -anner whate%er without the express authority of the ,o--issioner1
BBB BBB B B B8

However0 we ind no provision in the NIR( constituting such person a public o icer by reason o such re$uirement) The !IR#s power authori5ing a private individual to act as a depositary cannot be stretched to include the power to appoint him as a public o icer) The prosecution argues that 74rticle +++ o the Revised 3enal (ode B B B de ines the individuals covered by the term Fo icers# under 4rticle +&C B B B8 o the same (ode) 4nd accordingly0 since 45arcon became 7a depository o the truc< sei5ed by the !IR8 he also became a public o icer who can be prosecuted under 4rticle +&C B B B)8
%91' %*-' %*&'

The (ourt is not persuaded) 4rticle +++ o the R3( reads@

Officers included in the preceding provisions. -- 2he pro%isions of this "hapter shall apply to pri%ate indi%iduals who, in any "apa"ity whate%er, ha%e "har(e of any insular, pro%in"ial or -uni"ipal funds, re%enues, or property and to any ad-inistrator or depository of funds or property atta"hed, sei*ed or deposited y pu li" authority, e%en if su"h property elon(s to a pri%ate indi%idual16
7Gegislative intent is determined principally rom the language o a statute) Ehere the language o a statute is clear and unambiguous0 the law is applied according to its eBpress terms0 and interpretation would be resorted to only where a literal interpretation would be either impossible or absurd or would lead to an injustice)8 This is particularly observed in the interpretation o penal statutes which 7must be construed with such strictness as to care ully sa eguard the rights o the de endant B B B)8 The language o the oregoing provision is clear) 4 private individual who has in his charge any o the
%*+' %*9'

public unds or property enumerated therein and commits any o the acts de ined in any o the provisions o (hapter =our0 Title Seven o the R3(0 should li<ewise be penali5ed with the same penalty meted to erring public o icers) Nowhere in this provision is it eBpressed or implied that a private individual alling under said 4rticle +++ is to be deemed a public o icer) 4 ter a thorough review o the case at bench0 the (ourt thus inds petitioner 4l redo 45arcon and his co6accused 2aime 4ncla to be both private individuals erroneously charged be ore and convicted by Respondent Sandiganbayan which had no jurisdiction over them) The Sandiganbayan#s ta<ing cogni5ance o this case is o no moment since 7:j;urisdiction cannot be con erred by B B B erroneous belie o the court that it had jurisdiction)8 4s aptly and correctly stated by the petitioner in his memorandum@
%**'

Kro- the fore(oin( dis"ussion, it is e%ident that the petitioner did not "ease to e a pri%ate indi%idual when he a(reed to a"t as depositary of the (arnished du-p tru"91 2herefore, when the infor-ation "har(ed hi- and )ai-e .n"la efore the ;andi(an ayan for -al%ersation of pu li" funds or property, the prose"ution was in fa"t "har(in( two private individuals without any pu li" offi"er ein( si-ilarly "har(ed as a "o/"onspirator1 ,onse0uently, the ;andi(an ayan had no Jurisdi"tion o%er the "ontro%ersy and therefore all the pro"eedin(s ta9en elow as well as the De"ision rendered y $espondent ;andi(an ayan, are null and %oid for la"9 of Jurisdi"tion16
7B58

4%EREFORE0 the $uestioned Resolution and Decision o the Sandiganbayan are hereby SET 4SIDH and declared N?GG and VOID or lac< o jurisdiction) No costs) SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman , !avide, Jr., "elo, and #rancisco, JJ., concur)