Magno v People of the Phils.

G.R. No. 171542

Recit-Ready Case Summary:

The Office of the Ombudsman filed an information against several accused, including Magno, who were public officials working
for the NBI. Magno assails the appearance of Atty. Sitoy who was the private prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Office of
the Ombudsman.

General Rule of Law/Doctrine:

Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1606 created the Sandiganbayan. Section 4 thereof establishes the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction:

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

A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act, Republic
Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, 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:

xxxx

B. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees
mentioned in subsection 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.

FACTS:

The Office of the Ombudsman filed an information for multiple frustrated murder and double attempted murder against several
accused, including MAGNO, who were public officers working under the NBI. Magno, in open court, objected to the formal
appearance and authority of Atty. Sitoy, who was there as private prosecutor to prosecute the case for and on behalf of the
Office of the Ombudsman

The RTC issued an Order, ruling that “the Ombudsman is proper, legal and authorized entity to prosecute this case to the
exclusion of any other entity/person other than those authorized under R.A. 6770. This prompted the respondents to file a
petition for certiorari before the CA.

CA original decision: Declared that the private prosecutor may appear for the petitioner in the case, but only

In so far as the prosecution of the civil aspect of the case is concerned.

CA AMENDED decision: Ruling that the private prosecutor may appear for the petitioner in Criminal Case to intervene in the
prosecution of the offense charged in collaboration with any lawyer deputized by the Ombudsman to prosecute the case. This
amended CA decision in turn made Magno file for a review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Procedure before the SC.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

CA did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition for certiorari; the power to hear and decide that question is with the
Sandiganbayan.

The private prosecutor can’t be allowed to intervene for the respondents. Section 31 of RA No. 6770 does not allow the
Ombudsman to deputize private practitioners to prosecute cases for and on behalf of the Office of the Ombudsman.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
The Ombudsman did not address the contention that the Sandiganbayan, not the CA, has appellate jurisdiction over the RTC in
this case.

The Ombudsman maintains that Atty. Sitoy may intervene in the case pursuant to Section 16, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court
(Where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party
may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense.)

ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals has the appellate jurisdiction over the RTC’c decision in not allowing Atty. Sitoy to
prosecute the case on behalf of the Ombudsman – NO

HELD:

The Sandiganbayan, not the CA, has appellate jurisdiction over the RTC’s decision not to allow Atty. Sitoy to prosecute the case
on behalf of the Ombudsman

Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1606 created the Sandiganbayan. Section 4 thereof establishes the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction:

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

A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act, Republic
Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, 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:

xxxx

B. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees
mentioned in subsection 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.

In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade "27" or higher, as prescribed in the
said Republic Act No. 6758, or military or PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original 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 jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.

The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of regional trial
courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided.

The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and
over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under
Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive
of the Supreme Court.1

In the present case, the CA erred when it took cognizance of the petition for certiorari filed by Magno. While it is true that the
interlocutory order issued by the RTC is reviewable by certiorari, the same was incorrectly filed with the CA. Magno should have
filed the petition for certiorari with the Sandiganbayan, which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the RTC since the
accused are public officials charged of committing crimes in their capacity as Investigators of the National Bureau of
Investigation.

The CA should have dismissed the petition outright. Since it acted without authority, we overrule the September 26, 2005
Amended Decision of the CA and the subsequent denial of Magno’s motions for reconsideration.

Jurisdiction is conferred by law, and

the CA’s judgment, issued without
jurisdiction, is void2

1
Criminal Procedure - Dinoy
2
Criminal Procedure - Dinoy
There is no rule in procedural law as basic as the precept that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and any judgment, order or
resolution issued without it is void and cannot be given any effect. This rule applies even if the issue on jurisdiction was raised
for the first time on appeal or even after final judgment.

We reiterated and clarified the rule further in Felicitas M. Machado, et al. v. Ricardo L. Gatdula, et al., as follows:

Jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred by law and not by the parties’ action or conduct. Estoppel generally does not
confer jurisdiction over a cause of action to a tribunal where none, by law, exists.