Soller vs.

Sandiganbayan
G.R. Nos. 144261-62, May 9, 2001
Gonzaga-Reyes, J.

FACTS:
In the evening of March 14, 1997, Jerry Macabael, a municipal guard, was shot and killed
along a national highway at Bansud, Oriental Mindoro while driving a motorcycle together with
petitioner Soller’s son. The body was then brought to a medical clinic located in the house of
Petitioner Dr. Prudente Soller and his wife Dr. Preciosa Soller, who were the municipal mayor and
municipal health officer, respectively.
The crime was investigated by co-petitioner SPO4 Mario Matining. An autopsy was then
conducted on the same night the victim was brought to the clinic with the assistance of petitioners
Rodolfo Salcedo, Sanitary Inspector, and petitioner Josefina Morada, Rural Health Midwife.
When the autopsy report was released, the widow of Macabael filed a complaint with the
office of the Ombudsman charging the petitioners with conspiracy to mislead the investigation of
the fatal shootout by (a) altering his wound (b) concealing his brain; (c) falsely stating in police
report that he had several gunshot wounds when in truth he had only one; and d) falsely stating in
an autopsy report that there was no blackening around his wound when in truth there was.
Petitioners denied the allegations.
The Office of the Ombudsman recommended filing an information for obstruction of justice
(violation of PD 1829). Two Informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan.
Petitioners filed a motion to quash on the ground that the Sandiganbayan was without
jurisdiction over the offenses charged. Motion to quash was denied on the ground that “the
accusation involves the performance of the duties of at least one (1) of the accused public
officials, and if the Mayor is indeed properly charged together with that official, then the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the entire case and over all the co-accused.”
A motion for reconsideration was filed but was subsequently denied by the Sandiganbayan.
Thus, the petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.

ISSUE:
WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over an offense committed by a Municipal Mayor
who was not acting in his official capacity.

RULING:
No. The Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, which is provided for in Sec. 4 of PD 1606
provides, among others, that: 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, 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: [xxx]
(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade "27" and higher
under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. [xxx]
(b) Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crime
committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of this
section in relation to their office.
In the case at bar, the petitioners claim that for the Sandiganbayan to acquire jurisdiction,
the information should allege that the offense committed was intimately related to their offices and
perpetrated by them in their official functions. The Supreme Court, citing previous jurisprudence,
ruled that it is not necessary that the phrase "committed in violation to public office" appears in the
information. What is controlling in the determination of the jurisdiction is the specific factual
allegation in the information that would indicate close intimacy between the discharge of
the accused's official duties and the commission of the offense charged in order to qualify
the crime as having been committed in relation to public office.
The respondents’ failed to establish an intimate relationship between the offenses charged
and the discharge of petitioners’ official duties in the Informations. It is not within the function of a
Municipal Mayor to conduct an autopsy of a crime victim. Thus, the failure to indicate in the
information that the charges are intimately related to the offenders’ official functions, the case falls
under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, not the Sandiganbayan.