CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

I. Related Literature

The Sandiganbayan

This court, which in its literal sense is considered as the society’s advocate 1, is a

special court which possesses all the powers inherent to a court of justice 2. It was first

conceptualized during the administration of then President Ferdinand Marcos and was

mandated by the 1973 Constitution34 as provided under its Article XIII, Section 5, to wit:

“SEC. 5. The National Assembly shall create a special

court, to be known as Sandiganbayan, which shall have
jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft and
corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by public
officers and employees, including those in government-owned
or controlled corporations, in relation to their office as may be
determined by law”

By such mandate, Sandiganbayan has been commonly referred to as the “Anti-

Graft Court” and it has still continued having jurisdiction over criminal and civil referred

cases under the current Constitution5.

This special court was created by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1486 issued

on June 11, 1978 by the late President Marcos by virtue of the emergency legislative

power granted unto him under Amendment No. 6 of the 1976 Amendments to the 1973

Constitution6. Initially, it was set on the same level as what were then known as the

2
Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 1486
3
http://sb.judiciary.gov.ph/aboutsb.html
4
https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/60572-know-sandiganbayan-graft-plunder
5
Article 11, Section 4, 1987 Philippine Constitution
6
http://sb.judiciary.gov.ph/aboutsb.html
Courts of First Instance, now the Regional Trial Courts 7 but was shortly elevated to that

of the Court of Appeals8. This means that, following the principle of hierarchy of courts

and as provided by its promulgated rules 9, an appeal from a decision of the

Sandiganbayan shall only be filed with the Supreme Court 10.

Similar with the Court of Appeals and other special courts (e.g. Court of Tax

Appeals), Sandiganbayan is a collegial body. It has seven (7) divisions with three (3)

Justices including the presiding Justice11.

Presently, the Sandiganbayan exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over the

following:

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, Book II of the Revised Penal Code,

where one or more of the 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:

7
Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 1486
8
Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 1606
9

10
Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan
11
Sec.3, Rule III, 2018 Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan
 (a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the

sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers,

assessors, engineers, and other provincial department

heads:

(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang

panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and

other city department heads;

(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position

of consul and higher;

(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains,

and all officers of higher rank;

(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying

the position of provincial director and those holding the

rank of senior superintendent and higher;

(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and

officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman

and special prosecutor;

(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of

government-owned or controlled corporations, state

universities or educational institutions or foundations.

(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade

’27’ and higher under the Compensation and Position

Classification Act of 1989;

 (3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of

the Constitution;

(4) Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions,

without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and

(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 whether simple or complexed with other

crimes 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, issued in 1986 12.

The court, in exercise of its exclusive original jurisdiction over the cases

enumerated above, directly precedes through hearing and tries the case similar to that

of the trial courts.13

The Scope of Jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan

The particularity of Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction is hereby further elaborated by

classifying its scope as to what actions may be heard and who may be charged and

tried before it.

i. Actions being tried by the Sandiganbayan

12
Section 4, Presidential Decree 1606 as amended by Republic Act No. 10660
13
 Sandiganbayan exercises its jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving

graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by public officers and

employees, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, in relation

to their office as may be determined by law 14.

The Criminal acts being tried under the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan are the

following:

1. Bribery of public officials penalized under the Revised Penal Code 15;

2. Acts enumerated under Republic Act No. 3019 including the following:

a. Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to

perform an act constituting a violation of rules, or an offense in

connection with official duties

b. Requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage or

benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with

any contract or transaction between the government and any

other party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has

to intervene under the law

c. Requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or

material benefit, from any person for whom the public officer

has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any

government permit or license

d. Accepting or having any member of his family accept

employment in a private enterprise that has pending official

14

15
 business with him, during the pendency thereof or within one

year after its termination

e. Causing any undue injury to any party, including the

government, or giving any private party any unwarranted

benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his

functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross

inexcusable negligence

f. Neglecting or refusing to act within a reasonable time on any

matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining some

pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for the purpose

of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor

of or discriminating against any other interested party

g. Entering, on behalf of the government, into any contract or

transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the

same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit

thereby

h. Having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract

or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes

part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited from

having any interest

i. Becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material

interest in any transaction or act requiring the approval of a

board, panel or group of which he is a member, even if he

 votes against the same or does not participate in the action of

the board, committee, panel or group

j. Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege

or benefit in favor of any person not qualified

k. Divulging to unauthorized persons valuable information of a

confidential character acquired by his office or by him on

account of his official position, or releasing such information in

advance of its authorized release date 16;

3. Act of public officials and employees from soliciting or accepting,

directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or

anything of monetary value from any person:

a. in the course of their official duties; or

b. in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any

transaction which may be affected by, the functions of their

office; prohibited under Republic Act 6713 (The Code of

Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and

Employees).

4. Act of giving, or offering to give, to a public official or employee, a gift,

present or other valuable thing on any occasion punished under

Presidential Decree No. 46 (Giving of Gifts on any Occasion),

including Christmas, when such gift, present or other valuable thing is

given by reason of the public official/employee’s position, regardless

of whether or not the same is for past favour or the giver hopes or
16
 expects to receive a favour or better treatment in the future from the

public official or employee concerned, in the discharge of his official

functions. Included within the prohibition is the throwing of parties or

entertainment in honour of the public official or employee, or of his

immediate relatives;

5. Act of who acquiring ill-gotten wealth in the total of at least PHP 50

million through overt or criminal acts which is known as Plunder

punished by Republic Act 7080.

The Sandiganbayan exercises appellate jurisdiction over final judgments,

resolutions or orders of the RTC whether in the exercise of their original or appellate

jurisdiction over crimes and civil cases falling within the original exclusive jurisdiction of

the Sandiganbayan but which were committed by public officers below Salary Grade

2717.

ii. Persons who may be tried at the Sandiganbayan

Considering that all the acts tried and decided by Sandiganbayan refer to

those which are done when holding a position in public office, it only follows that the

main actors with whom the court may exercise its jurisdiction are public officers or

officials. The term “public officers”, is defined by the three different laws mentioned

above: RA 3019 or Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act 18, the Revised Penal Code, and

RA 671319.

17

18

19
 Under RA 3019, public officers are those which includes elective and appointive

officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or

unclassified or exempt service receiving compensation, even nominal, from the

government as defined in the preceding subparagraph. Government includes the

national government, the local governments, the government-owned and government-

controlled corporations, and all other instrumentalities or agencies of the Republic of the

Philippines and their branches20.

The Revised Penal Code defines “public officer” as any person who, by direct

provision of law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part

in the performance of public functions in the government of the Philippine Islands, or

shall perform in said government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee,

agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class 21.

RA 6713 defines “public officers” as including elective and appointive officials

and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the career or non-career service,

including military and police personnel, whether or not they receive compensation,

regardless of amount22.

a. The Amendment of Section 4, PD 1606:

when referred to regular trial courts

The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is originally provided by Section 4 of

Presidential Decree No. 160623. Said decree is issued by then President Marcos in

order to revise PD 148624 – the decree which created Sandiganbayan. The first law
20

21

22

23
Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486 Creating a Special Court to be Known as “Sandiganbayan” and for Other
Purposes
24
Creating a Special Court to be known as "Sandiganbayan" and for other purposes, June 11, 1978
amending the court’s jurisdiction is Republic Act 8249 25. Seven years later, the said

section is amended again by Republic Act No. 10660 26.

Under PD 1606, there is no rule providing which confers the regular courts of any

jurisdiction originally mandated for the Sandiganbayan.

The jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan may be considered to be the most amended

provision from the 1973 Constitution to RA 8249 of 1997 27. In the case of Inding vs

Sandiganbayan28, the application of the special court’s jurisdiction over the officials that

may be tried before it was put into issue.

Petitioner Inding moved to dismiss the case being charged against him and for

the case to be referred with either the Regional Trial Court or the Municipal Trial Court.

The primary basis of such motion is allegedly lack of jurisdiction over him or the public

official being charged. He asserted 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. He contended 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.

25
An Act further defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, amending for the purpose Presidential Decree No.
1606, as amended, providing funds therefor, and for other purposes, February 5, 1997
26
An Act Strengthening Further the Functional and Structural Organization of the Sandiganbayan, Further
Amending Presidential Decree No. 1606, As Amended, And Appropriating Funds Therefor, July 28, 2014
27
Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, retrieved from http://sb.judiciary.gov.ph/aboutsb.html
28
Ricardo S. Inding vs The Honorable Sandiganbayan and The People of the Philippines, G.R. NO. 143047 : July 14,
2004
 Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying the petitioners omnibus motion.

According to the court, the Information alleged that the petitioner has a salary grade of

27. Furthermore, 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. 8294 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 main issue raised and resolved in this case is whether 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.

The Court ruled in the affirmative and first discussed the reckoning point in

determining which law shall govern the rule on jurisdiction. The crime charged in this

case was committed when RA 7975 was still the applicable law. The said law

specifically included a list of public officers regardless of their salary grades, including

members of Sangguniang Panglungsod, to be tried originally at the Sandiganbayan in

cases of violation of RA 3019. The Court, in elaborating the reason behind the said
inclusion, cited the sponsorship speech of Senator Raul Roco for Senatorial Bill No. 844

which was adopted and eventually became RA 8249, to wit:

“ To speed up trial in the Sandiganbayan, Republic Act No.

7975 was enacted for that Court to concentrate on the larger
fish and leave the small fry to the lower courts.This law
became effective on May 6, 1995 and it provided a two-pronged
solution to the clogging of the dockets of that court, to wit:
It divested the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over public
officials whose salary grades were at Grade 26 or lower,
devolving thereby these cases to the lower courts, and retaining
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan only over public officials
whose salary grades were at Grade 27 or higher and over other
specific public officials holding important positions in
government regardless of salary grade 26.”

The Court further emphasized that said inclusion was deemed appropriate by the

legislature since those public officers enumerated therein are considered by them as big

fish and their positions important and for them to avoid using their influences in the trials

of their cases.

b. The Public Officers and their rights while being tried in a criminal

case before the Sandiganbayan

Public Officers being tried before the Sandiganbayan as accused are entitled to

the rights provided by the Constitution which include, among others, the right to be

presumed innocent before proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the right to due

process of law and the right to a fair and impartial trial 29. In the case Re: Request Radio-

TV Coverage of the Trial of in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases against the

Former President Joseph E. Estrada30, the court emphasized the rationale on favoring

the application of the rights of an accused. In preferring the latter, it ruled that:

29
Article 3, Section 14(2), 1987 Philippine Constitution
30
A.M. No. 01-4-03-S.C., June 29, 2001
 “With the possibility of losing not only the precious
liberty but also the very life of an accused, it behooves all to
make absolutely certain that an accused receives a verdict
solely on the basis of a just and dispassionate judgment, a
verdict that would come only after the presentation of
credible evidence testified to by unbiased witnesses
unswayed by any kind of pressure, whether open or subtle,
in proceedings that are devoid of histrionics that might
detract from its basic aim to ferret veritable facts free from
improper influence,8 and decreed by a judge with an
unprejudiced mind, unbridled by running emotions or
passions.”

In case of clash as of the rights of the public, which in said case concerns

information of public concern, and the rights of the accused, the latter shall prevail. This

is all in accord as the administration of justice goes by the saying that “It is better that

ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent to suffer. 31”

Absent any distinction provided by law, public officers are treated alike with

regular persons before the courts in cases of being charged of criminal offenses. Rights

of an accused do not only apply to normal or regular persons but also to those who are

in public office.

Further, the said case dealt with the weighing of the fundamental rights of the

accused with another constitutional guarantee of the right to public information 32. The

court ruled therein that when such rights race against one another, earlier decisions tell

that the right of the accused must be preferred to win.

In said Resolution, the Court cited the case of Estes vs Texas33 which settled the

issue as regards the television coverage of judicial proceedings. The United States

Supreme Court ruled therein that such coverage results to the prejudice and the

31
Blackstone’s Ratio, William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England
32
Article 3, Section 7, 1987 Philippine Constitution
33
381 U.S. 532 (1965)
inherent denial of due process right of an accused. In reliance with such ruling, the

Court discussed the balancing of interest of the accused, the general public and the

court, viz:

The courts recognize the constitutionally embodied freedom

of the press and the right to public information. It also
approves of media's exalted power to provide the most
accurate and comprehensive means of conveying the
proceedings to the public and in acquainting the public with
the judicial process in action; nevertheless, within the
courthouse, the overriding consideration is still the
paramount right of the accused to due process which
must never be allowed to suffer diminution in its
constitutional proportions. Justice Clark thusly
pronounced, "while a maximum freedom must be allowed
the press in carrying out the important function of informing
the public in a democratic society, its exercise must
necessarily be subject to the maintenance
of absolute fairness in the judicial process."

b.1. The right to be presumed innocent before proven guilty beyond reasonable

doubt

The presumption of innocence of an accused in a criminal case is a basic

constitutional principle34. The fundamental nature of this right is supported by Article

14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 35.

This right of an accused has been established way before and features

prominently in the legal systems of most modern liberal democracies. Its evident

significance is manifested by the adoption of countries, especially the democratic ones,

of this doctrine in their very own constitutions. In the case of Coffin vs United States36, it

34
Section 14(2), Article 3, 1987 Philippine Constitution
35
“Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty
according to law.”
36
156 U.S. 432 (1895) cited in the case of People of the Philippines vs Carlito Claro, G.R. No. 199894, April 5, 2017
is established that “the principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the

accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at

the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.” 37

This right is guaranteed by due process until the contrary is proven in a trial, not

lifted above its individual settings nor made an object of public's attention and where the

conclusions reached are induced not by any outside force or influence but only by

evidence and argument given in open court, where fitting dignity and calm ambiance is

demanded38.

The Human Rights Committee39 has defined the presumption of innocence to

mean that the “burden of proof is on the prosecution and the accused has the benefit of

the doubt”.40 Aside from such, the panel, jury or judge must approach the case without

negative predisposition drawn from the accused 41 or in other words they are expected to

have unprejudiced minds. The right to be presumed innocent serves a two-fold purpose:

first is to protect the accused or individual charged of a criminal offense; and second is

to maintain public confidence in ensuring integrity and security of the legal system 42.

It is regarded that it is not only the accused who benefits from the presumption of

innocence but the community as a whole. This is because the community has an

37
Ibid.
38

39
The Human Rights Committee is an authoritative body. See United States vs Bakeas, 987 F. Supp. 44, 46 n.4 (D.
Mass 1997) - “The HRC has the ultimate authority to decide whether parties’ clarifications or reservations have any
effect”
40
See General Comment (See Maria vs McElroy 68 F. Supp. 2d 206, 232 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) – General Comments and
decisions in individual cases are recognized as major source for interpretation of the ICCPR and are “authoritative”)
13, supra note 20, at par. 7 available at http//www1.umn.edu/humnrts/gencomm.
See Maria vs McElroy 68 F. Supp. 2d 206, 232 (E.D.N.Y. 1999)
41
The presumption of innocence “cautions the jury to put away from their minds all the suspicion that arises from
the arrest, indictment, and arraignment, and to reach their conclusion solely from legal evidence adduced.”, 9 J.
Wigmore, Evidence (3rd edition) retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40708017?read-
now=1&seq=15#page_scan_tab_contents
42
Ibid.
interest to protect its criminal justice system by maintaining the reasonable doubt

standard since it serves to protect its members form activity which injures them without

justifiable cause.43 By maintaining said standard, there can be no residue of reasonable

doubt and it will utmost ensure the avoidance of the reasonable possibility that an

innocent person may end up being punished of a crime he did not commit. It is further

opined that if conviction is allowed notwithstanding reasonable doubt, “right thinking

members of the community would then, justifiably, withdraw their trust and confidence

in the criminal law”.44

b.2. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt under the Rules of Court and the

interpretations of the Supreme Court of the Philippines

Together with other democratic countries, the Philippines adopted the doctrine of

presumption of innocence in its Constitution, viz:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed

innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right
to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a
speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face
to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in
his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided, that
he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.”45

In consonance with this constitutional provision, the burden of proof rests upon

the prosecution46 and the accused must then be acquitted and set free should the

43
The Burden of Proof in Criminal Justice, Michael Hor, SING. ACAD. L.J. 267,268 (1992) retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40708017?read-now=1&seq=15#page_scan_tab_contents
44
Ibid at 268.
45
Section 14(2), Article 3, 1987 Philippine Constitution
46
People v. Patentes, 726 Phil. 590, 606 (2014)
 47
prosecution not overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor. Conversely, in

convicting the accused all the elements of the crime charged must be proven beyond

reasonable doubt48 viz:

Sec. 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. - x x x Proof beyond

reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as,
excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty.
Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.49

Questions may arise regarding this matter considering the prevalence of corruption in

the country. Moreover, as mentioned in the earlier cited case of Inding50, what is being

avoided is the use of authority and influence these public officers may have as to control

the proceedings against them. Shall public officers still be entitled to these rights despite

the power, authority and influence that they may use in times of desperation?

One way of facing such was the amendment of the jurisdiction of the

Sandiganbayan as explained and interpreted in the earlier discussed case of Inding -

when the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan was made as to exercise jurisdiction over

the person who are considered as “big fish” in the public service referring to those who

are highly capable of doing the prohibited graft and corrupt practices.

It is very evident as well that a relaxation of the state’s burden is deemed

necessary. For this and for some other reasons, some international anti-corruption

conventions, as well as national constitutions and municipal criminal statutes, include

reverse onus provisions that relieve the prosecution of the high burden of proof required

to establish that a public officer’s act is a graft and corrupt practice. 51 The presence or
47
People v. Cruz, 736 Phil. 564, 580 (2014).
48
Ngo v. People, 478 Phil. 676, 680 (2004).
49
Rule 133, Rules of Court.
50

51
reverse onus provisions shifts the burden of proof to the accused to disprove the

probability of his guilt. 52 One of example of a crime having a reverse onus probandi

provision is Malversation of Public Funds. In this crime, all that is necessary for

conviction is proof that the accountable officer had received the public funds and that he

failed to account for the said funds upon demand without offering sufficient explanation

why there was shortage.53 The burden of proving and presenting any likelihood that he

had put the funds or property to personal use rests upon the accused in order to negate

the presumption that he had personally used said public funds. 54

Composition collegial

Jury decision

Collegial decision

52

53

54