452 Supreme Court Reports Annotated: Macalino vs. Sandiganbayan

1/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 376
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Macalino vs. Sandiganbayan
*
G.R. Nos. 140199-200. February 6, 2002.
FELICITO S. MACALINO, petitioner, vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN and OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,
respondents.
Public Officers; Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act;

Jurisdiction; Sandiganbayan; Ombudsman; Government-Owned
and Controlled Corporations; Employees and officials of the
Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) are not
public officers within the coverage of R.A. No. 3019, as amended,
inasmuch as PNCC has no original charter as it was incorporated
under the general law on corporations, and the Sandiganbayan
has no jurisdiction over them.—Inasmuch as the PNCC has no
original charter as it was incorporated under the general law on
corporations, it follows inevitably that petitioner is not a public
officer within the coverage of R.A. No. 3019, as amended. Thus,
the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdic-
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
453
VOL. 376, FEBRUARY 6, 2002 453
tion over him. The only instance when the Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction over a private individual is when the complaint
charges him either as a co-principal, accomplice or accessory of a
public officer who has been charged with a crime within the
jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016833ee695f770d02a6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/9
Same; Same; Same; Same; It is well-settled that the

jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is determined by the
law in force at the institution of the action.—The crimes charged
against petitioner were committed in 1989 and 1990. The criminal
actions were instituted in 1992. It is well-settled that “the
jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is determined by the
law in force at the institution of the action.”
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Cesar G. Viola for petitioner.
PARDO, J.:
1
The case is a petition for certiorari assailing the
jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and the2 Sandiganbayan to
take cognizance of two criminal cases against petitioner
and his wife Liwayway S. Tan, contending that he is not a3
public officer within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
On September 16, 1992, the Special Prosecutor, Office of
the Ombudsman, with the approval of the Ombudsman,
filed with the Sandiganbayan two informations against
petitioner and Liwayway S. Tan charging them with estafa
through falsification of official documents (Criminal Case
No. 18022) and frustrated estafa through falsification of
mercantile documents (Criminal Case No. 19268), as
follows:
“CRIMINAL CASE NO. 18022
“That on or about the 15th day of March, 1989 and for sometime
prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Mandaluyong,
Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-
_______________
1 Under Rule 65, Revised Rules of Court.

2 Criminal Cases Nos. 18022 and 19268.
3 Petition, Rollo, pp. 3-11.
454

named accused, FELICITO S. MACALINO, being then the

Assistant Manager of the Treasury Division and the Head of the
Loans Administration & Insurance Section of the Philippine
National Construction Corporation (PNCC), a government-
controlled corporation with offices at EDSA corner Reliance St.,
Mandaluyong, and hence, a public officer, while in the
performance of his official functions, taking advantage of his
position, committing the offense in relation to his office and
conspiring and confederating with his spouse LIWAYWAY S.
TAN, being then the owner of Wacker Marketing, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and by means of deceit
defraud the Philippine National Construction Corporation in the
following manner: in preparing the application with the
Philippine National Bank, Buendia Branch for the issuance of a
demand draft in the amount of NINE HUNDRED EIGHTY
THREE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY-TWO & 11/100
PESOS (P983,682.11), Philippine Currency, in favor of Bankers
Trust Company, accused FELICITO S. MACALINO superimposed
the name “Wacker Marketing” as payee to make it appear that
the demand draft was payable to it, when in truth and in fact and
as the accused very well knew, it was the Bankers Trust
Company which was the real payee as indicated in Check Voucher
No. 3-800-89 and PNB Check No. B236746 supporting said
application for demand draft; subsequently accused FELICITO S.
MACALINO likewise inserted into the letter of PNCC to PNB
Buendia Branch the words “payable to Wacker Marketing” to
make it appear that the demand drafts to be picked up by the
designated messenger were payable to Wacker Marketing when in
truth and in fact the real payee was Bankers Trust Company; and
as a result of such acts of falsification, PNB Buendia issued 19
demand drafts for P50,000.00 each and another demand draft for
P33,682.11, all payable to Wacker Marketing, which were
subsequently delivered to accused Felicitor S. Macalino and which
accused LIWAYWAY S. TAN thereafter exchanged with PNB
Balanga Branch for 19 checks at P50,000.00 each and another for
P33,682.11 and all of which she later deposited into Account No.
0042-0282-6 of Wacker Marketing at Philtrust Cubao, thereby
causing pecuniary damage and prejudice to Philippine National
Construction Corporation in the amount of P983,682.11.
“CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
“Manila, Philippines, August 24, 1992.”
_______________
4 Sandiganbayan Record, Vol. I, pp. 1-3.
455
VOL. 376, FEBRUARY 6, 2002 455

“CRIMINAL CASE NO. 19268
“That on or about the 4th day of April, 1990, and subsequently

thereafter, in the Municipality of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, FELICITO S. MACALINO, being then the
Assistant Manager of the Treasury Division and the Head of the
Loans Administration and Insurance Section of the Philippine
National Construction Corporation, a government-controlled
corporation with offices at EDSA corner Reliance St.,
Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, and hence, a public officer, while in
the performance of his official functions, taking advantage of his
position, committing the offense in relation to his office, and
conspiring and confederating with his spouse LIWAYWAY S.
TAN, being then the owner of Wacker Marketing, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and by means of deceit
defraud the Philippine National Construction Corporation in the
following manner: after receiving Check Voucher No. 04-422-90
covering the partial payment by PNCC of the sinking fund to
International Corporate Bank (Interbank) as well as Check No.
552312 for TWO MILLION TWO HUNDRED FIFTY
THOUSAND PESOS (P2,250,000.00), Philippine Currency,
payable to Interbank for the purpose, accused FELICITO S.
MACALINO falsified PNB Check No. 552312 by altering the
payee indicated therein to make it appear that the aforesaid
check was payable to Wacker Marketing instead of Interbank and
further falsified the schedule of check disbursements sent to PNB
Buendia by making it appear therein that the payee of Check No.
552312 was Wacker Marketing when in truth and in fact and as
the accused very well knew, it was Interbank which was the real
payee; accused LIWAYWAY S. TAN thereafter deposited Check
No. 552312 into Account No. 0042-0282-6 of Wacker Marketing at
Philtrust Cubao and Wacker Marketing subsequently issued
Philtrust Check No. 148039 for P100,000.00 in favor of accused
FELICITO S. MACALINO; which acts of falsification performed
by the accused would have defrauded the Philippine National
Construction Corporation of P2,250,000.00 had not PNB Buendia
ordered the dishonor of Check No. 552312 after noting the
alteration/erasures thereon, thereby failing to produce the felony
by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused.
“CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
“Manila, Philippines, May 28, 1993.”
Upon arraignment on November 9, 1992, petitioner 6

pleaded
not guilty to the charges. Hence, trial proceeded.
_______________
5 Sandiganbayan Record, Crim. Case No. 19268, pp. 1-3.

6 Sandiganbayan Record, Vol. I, p. 73.
456

However, during the initial presentation of evidence for the

defense, petitioner moved for leave to file a motion to
dismiss on the ground that the Sandiganbayan has no
jurisdiction over him since he is not a public officer because
the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC),
formerly the Construction and Development Corporation of
the Philippines (CDCP), is not a government-owned
7
or
controlled corporation with original8 charter. The People of
the Philippines opposed the motion.
On August 5, 1999, the Sandiganbayan promulgated a
resolution
9
denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of
merit. 10
Hence, this petition.
The Issue
The sole issue raised is whether petitioner, an employee of

the PNCC, is a public officer within the coverage of R.A.
No. 3019, as amended.
The Court’s Ruling
Petitioner contends that an employee of the PNCC is not a

public officer as defined under Republic Act No. 3019, as
follows:
“Sec. 2. (a) x x x x x x x x x.

“(b) Public officer includes elective and appointive officials and
employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the unclassified
or classified or exempted service receiving compensation, even
nominal, from the government as defined in the preceding
paragraph.”
We agree.
To resolve the issue, we resort to the 1987 Constitution.
Article XI, on the Accountability of Public Officers,
provides:
_______________
7 Sandiganbayan Record, Vol. I, pp. 327-336.

8 Sandiganbayan Record, Vol. II, pp. 358-369.
9 Sandiganbayan Record, Vol. II, p. 496; Rollo, p. 30.
10 Filed on October 15, 1999, Rollo, pp. 3-11. On February 28, 2000, we
gave due course to the petition (Rollo, pp. 57-58).
457
VOL. 376, FEBRUARY 6, 2002 457

“Section 12. The Ombudsman and his deputies, as protectors of

the people, shall act promptly 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 x x x.”
“Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the
following powers, functions and duties:
“1. Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any

act or omission of any public official or employee, office or
agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal,
unjust, improper and inefficient. x x x
“2. Direct, upon complaint or at its instance, any public
official or employee of the government, or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as of any
government-owned or controlled corporations with
original charters, to perform and expedite any act or duty
required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse
or impropriety in the performance of duties.” (italics
supplied)
Further, Article IX-B, Section 2 (1) of the 1987 Constitution

provides:
“The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions,

instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including
government-owned and controlled corporations with original
charters.” (italics supplied)
Republic Act No. 6770 provides:
“Section 15. Powers, Functions and Duties.—The Office of the

Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and
duties:
“1. Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by

any person, any act or omission of any public officer or
employee, office or agency, when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. x x x.
“2. Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any officer
or employee of the Government, or of any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as any
government-owned or controlled corporations with
original charters, to perform and expedite any act or duty
required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse
or impropriety in the performance of duties.”
In as much as the PNCC has no original charter as it was

incorporated under the general law on corporations, it
follows inevitably
458

that petitioner is not a public officer within the coverage of

R.A. No. 3019, as amended. Thus, the Sandiganbayan has
no jurisdiction over him. The only instance when the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a private individual is
when the complaint charges him either as a co-principal,
accomplice or accessory of a public officer who has been
charged with 11 a crime within the jurisdiction of
Sandiganbayan.
12
The cases cited by respondent People of the Philippines
are inapplicable because they were decided under the
provisions of the 1973 Constitution which included as
public officers, officials and employees of corporations
owned and controlled by the government though organized
and existing under the general corporation law. The 1987
Constitution excluded such corporations.
The crimes charged
13
against petitioner were committed
in 1989 and 1990. The criminal actions were instituted in
1992. It is well-settled that “the jurisdiction of a court to
try a criminal case is determined
14
by the law in force at the
institution of the action.”
The Fallo
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court GRANTS the petition.

The Court SETS ASIDE the order dated July 29, 1999 of
the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Cases Nos. 18022 and
19268 and ORDERS the DISMISSAL of the two (2) cases

against petitioner and his wife.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno, Kapunan and

Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, Order of the Sandiganbayan set aside.
_______________
11 Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan, 335 Phil. 1202, 1212; 268 SCRA 747

(1997).
12 PNCC v. Court of Appeals, 228 SCRA 565 (1993); Jaballas v. CDCP,
165 SCRA 716 (1988); and CDCP v. Leogardo, Jr., 125 SCRA 863 (1983).
13 In Crim. Case No. 198268.
14 Alarilla v. Sandiganbayan, 338 SCRA 485, 496 (2000).
459
VOL. 376, FEBRUARY 6, 2002 459

Salazar vs. Court of Appeals
Notes.—The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal

action is to be determined by the law in force at the time of
the institution of the action, unless the statute expressly
provides, or is construed to the effect that it is intended to
operate as to actions pending before its enactment. (People
vs. Velasco, 252 SCRA 135 [1996])
The mere allegation in the amended information that
the offense was committed by the accused public officer in
relation to his office is not sufficient—that phrase is merely
a conclusion of law, not a factual averment that would
show the close intimacy between the offense charged and
the discharge of the accused’s official duties. (Lacson vs.
Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA 298 [1999])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

452 Supreme Court Reports Annotated: Macalino vs. Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

452 Supreme Court Reports Annotated: Macalino vs. Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 376

452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

FELICITO S. MACALINO, petitioner, vs.

Public Officers; Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act;

VOL. 376, FEBRUARY 6, 2002 453

Macalino vs. Sandiganbayan

Same; Same; Same; Same; It is well-settled that the

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

“CRIMINAL CASE NO. 18022

1 Under Rule 65, Revised Rules of Court.

454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

named accused, FELICITO S. MACALINO, being then the

4 Sandiganbayan Record, Vol. I, pp. 1-3.

VOL. 376, FEBRUARY 6, 2002 455

Macalino vs. Sandiganbayan

“CRIMINAL CASE NO. 19268

“That on or about the 4th day of April, 1990, and subsequently

Upon arraignment on November 9, 1992, petitioner 6

5 Sandiganbayan Record, Crim. Case No. 19268, pp. 1-3.

456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

However, during the initial presentation of evidence for the

The sole issue raised is whether petitioner, an employee of

The Court’s Ruling

Petitioner contends that an employee of the PNCC is not a

“Sec. 2. (a) x x x x x x x x x.

7 Sandiganbayan Record, Vol. I, pp. 327-336.

VOL. 376, FEBRUARY 6, 2002 457

“Section 12. The Ombudsman and his deputies, as protectors of

“1. Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any

Further, Article IX-B, Section 2 (1) of the 1987 Constitution

“The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions,

Republic Act No. 6770 provides:

“Section 15. Powers, Functions and Duties.—The Office of the

“1. Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by

In as much as the PNCC has no original charter as it was

458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

that petitioner is not a public officer within the coverage of

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court GRANTS the petition.

19268 and ORDERS the DISMISSAL of the two (2) cases

Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno, Kapunan and

Petition granted, Order of the Sandiganbayan set aside.

11 Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan, 335 Phil. 1202, 1212; 268 SCRA 747

VOL. 376, FEBRUARY 6, 2002 459

Notes.—The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like