G.R. No.

159813 August 9, 2006

TONY N. FIGUEROA and ROGELIO J. FLAVIANO, Petitioners,

vs.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Assailed and sought to be set aside in this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the Decision 1 dated October 11,
2002 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 17235, affirming in toto an earlier decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Davao City, Branch 17, which found herein petitioners guilty of the crime of libel.

The antecedent facts:

On March 24, 1992, in the RTC of Davao City, the city prosecutor of Davao, at the instance of one Aproniano Rivera, filed an
Information 2 for libel under Article 355 in relation to Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code against the herein petitioners, Tony N.
Figueroa and Rogelio J. Flaviano. Docketed in the same court as Criminal Case No. 25,957-92 and raffled to Branch 17 thereof, the
Information alleges as follows:

That on or about April 9, 1991, in the City of Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
mentioned accused, Tony VN. Figueroa, writer under the column entitled "Footprints" of the People's Daily Forum, conspiring,
confederating and helping one another with his co-accused Rogelio J. Flaviano, Publisher-Editor of the same magazine, with malicious
intent of impeaching the honesty, integrity, character as well as the reputation and the social standing of one Aproniano Rivera and with
intent to cast dishonor, discredit and contempt upon said Aproniano Rivera, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously published in the
People's Daily Forum, a news publication as follows:

"Bangkerohan public market these days is no different from the US Times Square. Bullies, thugs, hooligans and gyppers roam with
impunity, some using organizational clout as a ploy to keep themselves from obvious exposure. Some leeches, like a certain Aproniano
"Rey" Rivera, our sources say, are lording it over like the city's sprawling vegetable and meat complex has become an apportioned
bailiwick.

"Rivera, apparently a non-Visayan pseudobully flaunting with his tag as president of a vendor's federation, has intimated a good
number of lowly hawkers. This is a confirmed fact, our sources believe. And our independent eveasdroppers [sic] have come with a
similar perception of a man who continues to lead a federation when, in the first place, he has no business being in Davao or in
Bankerohan.

"Often, Mr. "Re" (King?) Rivera strolls the stretches which criss-cross the Bankerohan confines with the arrogance of a tribal chieftain;
the only differences, however, are that: he uses no G-strings, speaks in some strange Luzon lingo and twang, and has no solid
leadership. Our reports have finely outlined the mechanics of Rivera's tactics despite assertions the man is nothing but a paper tiger
conveniently propped up by federation members loyal to his sometime indecent role as a sachem.

"This man, the sources add, is backed by powerful city government hooligans who, it was reported, have direct hand in the planned
manipulation in the distribution of stalls to privileged applicants. Even if he has reportedly sold his interest in the public market, which
should be reason enough for him to resign from his position, Rivera still carries the false aura of intimidating poor vendors and imposing
his insensible remarks about what must be done about the governance of Bangkerohan.

"Sometimes its hard to compel a man with Rivera's mind about the nuances of honorable resignation. May iba d'yan na pakapalan na
lang ng mukha!"

xxx xxx xxx

"Rivera, however, must be consoled in knowing he's not alone with his dirty antics. Romy Miclat, a president of a meat vendors group in
Bankerohan, and his board member, Erning Garcia, have tacitly followed the way of the thugs, floating little fibs to gullible victims. Our
moles have gathered the due are seeling [sic] the new public market stalls for P9,000 with the assurances that the buyer gets a display
area ordinarily occupied by two applicants. A lot more have fallen prey to the scheme, and more the blindly swallowing all the books the
two are peddling.

"This dilemma has been there for so long, but the city hall, RCDP, and the city council have continuously evaded the vicious cabal of
men out to derail the raffling of the stalls to applicants. Some believe strongly this is odd, but they can only whimper at their
helplessness against power-brokers who have taken over the dominance of Bangkerohan. One of the likely victims in this filthy
machination are the sinapo vendors who have become explosively furious over the snafu they are facing because of the manipulation
of stalls inside Bangkerohan.

"Insiders continuo[u]sly tell of woeful tales about how they have been given runarounds by many so-called public servants, but they
have maintained their composures quite curiously. They are talking, however, of anger which, our sources [s]ay, may end up with a
bloody retaliation. This probability is looming more lucid every day the officials handling the Bangkerohan stall mess are condoning their
plight. Even politicos are oddly silent about the whole controversy for some unknown reasons. It looks like the alleged schemes
perpetrated by Rivera, Miclat and Garcia will remain unperturbed, no thanks to power-brokers."

which newspaper was read by the people throughout Davao City, to the dishonor, discredit and contempt upon said Aproniano Rivera.

Contrary to law.

On arraignment, petitioners as accused, assisted by counsel, entered a common plea of "Not Guilty." Thereafter, trial on the merits
ensued.

On June 8, 1993, the RTC rendered its decision 3 finding both petitioners guilty as charged and accordingly sentenced them, thus:

WHEREFORE, finding the evidence of the prosecution sufficient to prove the guilt of both accused, Tony Figueroa and Rogelio
Flaviano, columnist and publisher-editor, respectively of the People's Daily Forum, of the offense charged, beyond reasonable doubt;
their evidence adduced is not sufficient to afford their exoneration, pursuant to Art. 355 in relation to Art. 360 of the Revised Penal
Code, without any mitigating ot [sic] aggravating circumstances, proved in the commission of the offense charged, imposing the
indeterminate sentence law, both accused are hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of five months and
one day of arresto mayor maximum as minimum penalty, to two years four months and 31 days of prision correccional minimum as
maximum penalty with accessory penalty as provided for by law.

Moreover, pursuant to Art. 100 in relation to Art. 104 of the Revised Penal Code, governing civil indemnity, both accused are ordered to
pay jointly and solidarily the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages to complainant, Aproniano Rivera and the amount of P10,000.00
by way of attorney's fees with costs.

Without any aggravating circumstances proved by the prosecution, in the commission of the offense charged exemplary damages
against both accused, cannot be awarded. x x x

SO ORDERED.

From the trial court’s judgment of conviction, petitioners went to the CA whereat their appellate recourse was docketed as CA-G.R. CR
No. 17235.

As stated at the threshold hereof, the CA, in the herein assailed Decision 4 dated October 11, 2002, affirmed that of the trial court, to
wit:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby AFFIRMED in all respects.

SO ORDERED.

Undaunted, petitioners are now with this Court via this petition for review on their submissions that the CA erred -

1. IN HOLDING THAT THE COLUMN ENTITLED "FOOTPRINTS" OF THE PEOPLE’S DAILY FORUM IS LIBELOUS OR
DEFAMATORY TO PRIVATE COMPLAINANT APRONIANO RIVERA;

2. IN HOLDING THAT PRIVATE COMPLAINANT IS NOT A PUBLIC OFFICER, HENCE THE PUBLISHED ARTICLE CANNOT BE
CONSIDERED TO BE WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION;

3. IN UPHOLDING THE AWARD OF MORAL DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES.

The petition lacks merit.

In praying for their acquittal, petitioners attempt to pass off the subject published article as one that portrays the condition of the
Bankerohan Public Market in general. Citing Jimenez v. Reyes, 5  they challenge the finding of the two courts below on the libelous or
defamatory nature of the same article which, to them, must be read and construed in its entirety. It is their posture that the article was
not directed at the private character of complainant Aproniano Rivera but on the sorry state of affairs at the Bankerohan Public Market.

Petitioners’ posture cannot save the day for them.

Our own reading of the entire text of the published article convinces us of its libelous or defamatory character. While it is true that a
publication's libelous nature depends on its scope, spirit and motive taken in their entirety, the article in question as a whole explicitly
makes mention of private complainant Rivera all throughout. It cannot be said that the article was a mere general commentary on the
alleged existing state of affairs at the aforementioned public market because Rivera was not only specifically pointed out several times
therein but was even tagged with derogatory names. Indubitably, this name-calling was, as correctly found by the two courts
below, directed at the very person of Rivera himself.

If, as argued, the published article was indeed merely intended to innocently present the current condition of the Bankerohan Public
Market, there would then be no place in the article for the needless name-calling which it is wrought full of. It is beyond comprehension
how calling Rivera a "leech," "a paper tiger," a "non-Visayan pseudobully" with the "arrogance of a tribal chieftain" save for his speaking
in "some strange Luzon lingo and twang" and who "has no business being in Davao or Bankerohan" can ever be regarded or viewed as
comments free of malice. As it is, the tag and description thus given Rivera have no place in a general account of the situation in the
public market, and cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be construed to be anything other than what they really are: defamatory
and libelous in nature, and definitely directed at the private character of complainant Rivera. For indeed, no logical connection can
possibly be made between Rivera's Luzon origin and the conditions of the Bankerohan Public Market. Doubtless, the words used in the
article reek of venom towards the very person of Rivera.

Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code defines libel as follows:

Art. 353. Definition of libel. -  A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to
blacken the memory of one who is dead.

Defamation, which includes libel and slander, means injuring a person's character, fame or reputation through false and malicious
statements. It is that which tends to injure reputation or to diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in the complainant or to
excite derogatory feelings or opinions about him. It is the publication of anything which is injurious to the good name or reputation of
another or tends to bring him into disrepute. 6

In the light of the numerable defamatory imputations made against complainant Rivera as a person, the article in dispute, even taken,
as urged, in its totality, undeniably caused serious damage to his character and person and clearly injurious to his reputation.

At any rate, in libel cases, the question is not what the writer of the libelous material means, but what the words used by him
mean. 7 Here, the defamatory character of the words used by the petitioners is shown by the very recitals thereof in the questioned
article.

It is next contended by the petitioners that Rivera is a public officer. On this premise, they invoke in their favor the application of one of
the exceptions to the legal presumption of the malicious nature of every defamatory imputation, as provided for under paragraph (2),
Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:

Art. 354. Requirement for publicity. - Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention
and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases:

xxx xxx xxx

2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings
which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed
by public officers in the exercise of their functions.

Again, as correctly found by both the trial court and the CA, Rivera is not a public officer or employee but a private citizen. Hence, the
published article cannot be considered as falling within the ambit of privileged communication within the context of the above-quoted
provision of the Penal Code.

A public office is the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which an individual is invested with some portion of the
sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public. The individual so invested is a public officer.
The most important characteristic which distinguishes an office from an employment or contract is that the creation and conferring of an
office involve a delegation to the individual of some of the sovereign functions of government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of
the public; that some portion of the sovereignty of the country, either legislative, executive or judicial, attaches, to be exercised for the
public benefit. Unless the powers conferred are of this nature, the individual is not a public officer. 8

Clearly, Rivera cannot be considered a public officer. Being a member of the market committee did not vest upon him any sovereign
function of the government, be it legislative, executive or judicial. As reasoned out by the CA, the operation of a public market is not a
governmental function but merely an activity undertaken by the city in its private proprietary capacity. Furthermore, Rivera's
membership in the market committee was in representation of the association of market vendors, a non-governmental organization
belonging to the private sector.

Indeed, even if we were to pretend that Rivera was a public officer, which he clearly is not, the subject article still would not pass muster
as Article 354(2), supra, of the Revised Penal Code expressly requires that it be a "fair and true report, made in good faith, without any
comments or remarks." Even a mere cursory glance at the article reveals that it is far from being that.
Finally, petitioners assail the award by the two courts below of moral damages and attorney's fees in favor of Rivera.

The assault must fail. Article 2219(7) of the Civil Code is express in stating that moral damages may be recovered in case of libel,
slander or any other form of defamation. From the very publication and circulation of the subject defamatory and libelous material itself,
there can be no doubt as to the resulting wounded feelings and besmirched reputation sustained by complainant Rivera. The branding
of defamatory names against him most certainly exposed him to public contempt and ridicule. As found by the trial court in its judgment
of conviction:

Complainant, when he read the subject publication, was embarrass on what was written against him, made more unpleasant on the
occasion of the reunion of his son-in-law, who just arrived from the United States for the first time, was confronted of the above-
defamatory publication. He was worried and depressed, about the comments against him, affecting his credibility and personality, as
representative of many market organizations in Davao City.

Having been exposed to embarrassment and ridicule occasioned by the publication of the subject article, Rivera is entitled to moral
damages and attorney's fees.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant petition is DENIED and the assailed CA Decision dated October 11, 2002 is AFFIRMED.

Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Xxxxxxxx

G.R. Nos. 140199-200 : February 6, 2002

FELICITO S. MACALINO, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN and OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Respondents.

The case is a petition for certiorari1 assailing the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan to take cognizance of two
criminal cases2 against petitioner and his wife Liwayway S.  Tan, contending that he is not a public officer within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.3cräläwvirtualibräry

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-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.

Manila, Philippines, August 24, 1992.[4cräläwvirtualibräry

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.

Manila, Philippines, May 28, 1993.[5cräläwvirtualibräry

Upon arraignment on November 9, 1992, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges. Hence, trial proceeded.6cräläwvirtualibräry

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 or
controlled corporation with original charter.7 The People of the Philippines opposed the motion.8cräläwvirtualibräry

On August 5, 1999, the Sandiganbayan promulgated a resolution denying petitioners motion to dismiss for lack of
merit.9cräläwvirtualibräry

Hence, this petition.10

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 Courts 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) xxx xxx xxx.

(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:

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. (underscoring
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. (underscoring 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.

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 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 a crime within the jurisdiction of
Sandiganbayan.11cräläwvirtualibräry

The cases12 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 against petitioner were committed in 1989 and 1990.13 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.14

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.

Xxxxxx

G.R. No. 158187             February 11, 2005

MARILYN GEDUSPAN and DRA. EVANGELYN FARAHMAND, petitioners,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents.

Does the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over a regional director/manager of government-owned or controlled corporations organized
and incorporated under the Corporation Code for purposes of RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act? Petitioner Marilyn C.
Geduspan assumes a negative view in the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The Office of the Special
Prosecutor contends otherwise, a view shared by the respondent court.

In the instant Rule 65 petition for certiorari with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or issuance of a temporary restraining
order, Geduspan seeks to annul and set aside the resolutions1 dated January 31, 2003 and May 9, 2003 of the respondent
Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division. These resolutions denied her motion to quash and motion for reconsideration, respectively.
On July 11, 2002, an information docketed as Criminal Case No. 27525 for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, as amended, was filed
against petitioner Marilyn C. Geduspan and Dr. Evangeline C. Farahmand, Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (Philhealth)
Regional Manager/Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Tiong Bi Medical Center, Tiong Bi, Inc., respectively. The
information read:

That on or about the 27th day of November, 1999, and for sometime subsequent thereto, at Bacolod City, province of Negros
Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused MARILYN C. GEDUSPAN, a public
officer, being the Regional Manager/Director, of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation, Regional office No. VI, Iloilo City, in such
capacity and committing the offense in relation to office, conniving, confederating and mutually helping with DR. EVANGELINE C.
FARAHMAND, a private individual and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Tiong Bi Medical Center, Tiong Bi, Inc., Mandalangan,
Bacolod City, with deliberate intent, with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
release the claims for payments of patients confined at L.N. Memorial Hospital with Philippine Health Insurance Corp., prior to January
1, 2000, amounting to NINETY ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIFTY-FOUR and 64/100 (₱91,954.64), Philippine Currency, to
Tiong Bi Medical Center, Tiong Bi, Inc. despite clear provision in the Deed of Conditional Sale executed on November 27, 1999,
involving the sale of West Negros College, Inc. to Tiong Bi, Inc. or Tiong Bi Medical Center, that the possession, operation and
management of the said hospital will be turned over by West Negros College, Inc. to Tiong Bi, Inc. effective January 1, 2000, thus all
collectibles or accounts receivable accruing prior to January 1, 2000 shall be due to West Negros College, Inc., thus accused MARILYN
C. GEDUSPAN in the course of the performance of her official functions, had given unwarranted benefits to Tiong Bi, Inc., Tiong Bi
Medical Center, herein represented by accused DR. EVANGELINE C. FARAHMAND, to the damage and injury of West Negros
College, Inc.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Both accused filed a joint motion to quash dated July 29, 2002 contending that the respondent Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over
them considering that the principal accused Geduspan was a Regional Director of Philhealth, Region VI, a position classified under
salary grade 26.

In a resolution dated January 31, 2003, the respondent court denied the motion to quash. The motion for reconsideration was likewise
denied in a resolution dated May 9, 2003.

Hence, this petition.

Petitioner Geduspan alleges that she is the Regional Manager/Director of Region VI of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation
(Philhealth). However, her appointment paper and notice of salary adjustment2 show that she was appointed as Department Manager A
of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (Philhealth) with salary grade 26. Philhealth is a government owned and controlled
corporation created under RA 7875, otherwise known as the National Health Insurance Act of 1995.

Geduspan argues that her position as Regional Director/Manager is not within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. She cites
paragraph (1) and (5), Section 4 of RA 8249 which defines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan:

Section 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, Book 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;

xxx xxx xxx

(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade "27" and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of
1989.

The petition lacks merit.

The records show that, although Geduspan is a Director of Region VI of the Philhealth, she is not occupying the position of Regional
Director but that of Department Manager A, hence, paragraphs (1) and (5) of Section 4 of RA 8249 are not applicable.

It is petitioner’s appointment paper and the notice of salary adjustment that determine the classification of her position, that is,
Department Manager A of Philhealth.
Petitioner admits that she holds the position of Department Manager A of Philhealth. She, however, contends that the position of
Department Manager A is classified under salary grade 26 and therefore outside the jurisdiction of respondent court. She is at present
assigned at the Philhealth Regional Office VI as Regional Director/Manager.

Petitioner anchors her request for the issuance of a temporary restraining order on the alleged disregard by respondent court of the
decision of this Court in Ramon Cuyco v. Sandiganbayan.3

However, the instant case is not on all fours with Cuyco. In that case, the accused Ramon Cuyco was the Regional Director of the Land
Transportation Office (LTO), Region IX, Zamboanga City, but at the time of the commission of the crime in 1992 his position of Regional
Director of LTO was classified as Director II with salary grade 26. Thus, the Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over
his person.

In contrast, petitioner held the position of Department Director A of Philhealth at the time of the commission of the offense and that
position was among those enumerated in paragraph 1(g), Section 4a of RA 8249 over which the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction:

Section 4. Section 4 of the same decree is hereby further amended to read as follows:

Section 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, 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 ‘Grade 27’
and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:

(a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) xxx xxx xxx

(c) xxx xxx xxx

(d) xxx xxx xxx

(e) xxx xxx xxx

(f) xxx xxx xxx

(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned and controlled corporations, state universities or
educational institutions or foundations." (Underscoring supplied).

It is of no moment that the position of petitioner is merely classified as salary grade 26. While the first part of the above–quoted
provision covers only officials of the executive branch with the salary grade 27 and higher, the second part thereof "specifically
includes" other executive officials whose positions may not be of grade 27 and higher but who are by express provision of law placed
under the jurisdiction of the said court.

Hence, respondent court is vested with jurisdiction over petitioner together with Farahmand, a private individual charged together with
her.

The position of manager in a government-owned or controlled corporation, as in the case of Philhealth, is within the jurisdiction of
respondent court. It is the position that petitioner holds, not her salary grade, that determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

This Court in Lacson v. Executive Secretary, et al. 4 ruled:

A perusal of the aforequoted Section 4 of R.A. 8249 reveals that to fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, the
following requisites must concur: (1) the offense committed is a violation of (a) R.A. 3019, as amended (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act), (b) R.A. 1379 (the law on ill-gotten wealth), (c) Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, book II of the Revised Penal Code (the law
on bribery), (d) Executive Order Nos. 1,2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986 (sequestration cases), or (e) other offenses or felonies whether
simple or complexed with other crimes; (2) the offender committing the offenses in items (a), (b), (c) and (e) is a public official or
employee holding any of the positions enumerated in paragraph a of section 4; and (3) the offense committed is in relation to the office.
To recapitulate, petitioner is a public officer, being a department manager of Philhealth, a government-owned and controlled
corporation. The position of manager is one of those mentioned in paragraph a, Section 4 of RA 8249 and the offense for which she
was charged was committed in relation to her office as department manager of Philhealth. Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction over her person as well as the subject matter of the case.

WHEREFORE, petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Xxxxxxx

G.R. No. 169328             October 27, 2006

JULIAN A. ALZAGA, MEINRADO ENRIQUE A. BELLO, and MANUEL S. SATUITO, petitioners,

vs.
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (2nd Division) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

This Petition for Certiorari assails the April 25, 2005 and August 10, 2005 Resolutions1 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos.
25681-25684, which respectively reversed the May 27, 2004 Resolution2 of the court a quo and denied petitioners’ Motion for
Reconsideration.3

On October 7, 1999,4 four separate Informations for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 were filed against
petitioners Julian A. Alzaga, Meinrado Enrique A. Bello and Manuel S. Satuito relative to alleged irregularities which attended the
purchase of four lots in Tanauan, Batangas, by the Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-
RSBS). Alzaga was the Head of the Legal Department of AFP-RSBS when one of the lots was purchased. Bello was a Police
Superintendent and he succeeded Alzaga as Head of the Legal Department. It was during his tenure when the other three lots were
purchased. Both were Vice Presidents of AFP-RSBS. On the other hand, Satuito was the Chief of the Documentation and Assistant
Vice President of the AFP-RSBS.5

Petitioners filed their respective Motions to Quash and/or Dismiss the informations alleging that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction
over them and their alleged offenses because the AFP-RSBS is a private entity created for the benefit of its members and that their
positions and salary grade levels do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan pursuant to Section 4 of Presidential Decree
(P.D.) No. 1606 (1978),6 as amended by R.A. No. 8249 (1997).7

On May 27, 2004, the Sandiganbayan granted petitioners’ motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

However, in a Resolution dated April 25, 2005, the Sandiganbayan reversed its earlier resolution. It held that the AFP-RSBS is a
government-owned or controlled corporation thus subject to its jurisdiction. It also found that the positions held by Alzaga and Bello,
who were Vice Presidents, and Satuito who was an Assistant Vice President, are covered and embraced by, and in fact higher than the
position of managers mentioned under Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, thus under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration8 was denied, hence, this petition raising the following issues:

THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF

JURISDICTION IN DECIDING A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A MANNER NOT ACCORD WITH LAW AND APPLICABLE
JURISPRUDENCE THAT IT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE PETITIONERS

II

THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF

JURISDICTION IN DECIDING A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A MANNER NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR
JURISPRUDENCE THAT THE ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT AND SEPARATION BENEFITS SYSTEM (AFP-RSBS) IS A
GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATION

III

THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF

JURISDICTION IN DECIDING A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A MANNER NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR
 JURISPRUDENCE THAT PETITIONERS ALZAGA AND BELLO[,] WHO WERE BOTH VICE-PRESIDENTS OF THE AFP-
RSBS[,] AND PETITIONER SATUITO[,] WHO WAS ASSISTANT VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE AFP-RSBS[,] ARE COVERED
AND EMBRACED BY THE POSITION "MANAGERS" MENTIONED UNDER SECTION 4 a (1) (g) OF PD NO. 1606, AS
AMENDED.9

The petition is without merit.

The AFP-RSBS was established by virtue of P.D. No. 361 (1973)10 in December 1973 to guarantee continuous financial support to the
AFP military retirement system, as provided for in R.A. No. 340 (1948).11 It is similar to the Government Service Insurance System
(GSIS) and the Social Security System (SSS) since it serves as the system that manages the retirement and pension funds of those in
the military service.12

The AFP-RSBS is administered by the Chief of Staff of the AFP through a Board of Trustees and Management Group,13 and funded
from congressional appropriations and compulsory contributions from members of the AFP; donations, gifts, legacies, bequests and
others to the system; and all earnings of the system which shall not be subject to any tax whatsoever.14

Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as further amended by R.A. No. 8249, grants jurisdiction to the Sandiganbayan over:

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:

xxxx

(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or
educational institutions or foundations;

In People v. Sandiganbayan,15 where herein petitioners Alzaga and Satuito were respondents, this Court has ruled that the character
and operations of the AFP-RSBS are imbued with public interest thus the same is a government entity and its funds are in the nature of
public funds. In Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,16 we held that the AFP-RSBS is a government-owned and controlled corporation under
R.A. No. 9182, otherwise known as The Special Purpose Vehicle Act of 2002. These rulings render unmeritorious petitioners’ assertion
that the AFP-RSBS is a private entity.

There is likewise no merit in petitioners’ claim that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over them since their positions as vice
presidents and assistant vice president are not covered nor embraced by the term "managers" under section 4 of RA. No. 8249.

We held in Geduspan v. People,17 that while the first part of section 4 covers only officials of the executive branch with the salary grade
27 and higher, the second part "specifically includes" other executive officials whose positions may not be of grade 27 and higher but
who are by express provision of law placed under the jurisdiction of the said court. In the latter category, it is the position held and not
the salary grade which determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Thus, presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of
government owned and controlled corporations, are under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

In the instant case, petitioners Alzaga and Bello were Head of the Legal Department while petitioner Satuito was Chief of the
Documentation with corresponding ranks of Vice Presidents and Assistant Vice President. These positions are not specifically
enumerated in RA. No. 8249; however, as correctly observed by the Sandiganbayan, their ranks as Vice Presidents and Assistant Vice
President are even higher than that of "managers" mentioned in RA. No. 8249.

In sum, the Sandiganbayan correctly ruled that the AFP-RSBS is a government-owned and controlled corporation and that it has
jurisdiction over the persons of petitioners who were Vice Presidents and Assistant Vice President when the charges against them were
allegedly committed.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED. The assailed Resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated April 25, 2005
that the AFP-RSBS is a government-owned and controlled corporation and that it has jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners
and the Resolution dated August 10, 2005 denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.