Uy vs.
Sandiganbayan
Topic:
Officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigation; Ombudsman
Facts:
Initially, 6 informations for estafa through falsification of official documents and 1 information for
violation of Sec. 3(e), RA 3019, as amended were filed with the Sandiganbayan against Uy and
19 co-accused. Later, the Sandiganbayan directed a comprehensive re-investigation of the
cases against all the 20 accused, which led to the Special Prosecutor recommending that the
informations for estafa through falsification of official documents be withdrawn. Several other
names were also dropped as accused. Eventually 6 informations for violation of Sec. 3(e), RA
3019, as amended, was filed against Uy.
Uy filed a motion to quash on the ground that the SB has no jurisdiction over the offense
charged and that the officer who has filed the informations had no authority to do so. The SB
denied the motion to quash stating that it had jurisdiction and that the preliminary investigation
and prosecution of the instant criminal charges belong to, and are the exclusive prerogatives of,
the Office of the Ombudsman, as provided for in Sec. 15(1) of RA 6770.
Issue:
Whether the Ombudsman and Special Prosecutor have the authority to file the questioned
amended information. (No)
Ruling:
The SC ruled that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over petitioner, at the time of the filing
of the informations, and as now prescribed by law. RA 8249, the latest amendment to PD 1606
creating the Sandiganbayan, provides the prevailing scope of the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction.
Sec. 4(d) provides that Sandiganbayan shall exercises exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases
involving Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank.
Here, while Uy is charged with violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019, as amended, which is an
offense covered by Sec. 4 of the Sandiganbayan Law, his position as Lieutenant Commander of
the Philippine Navy is a rank lower than “naval captains and all officers of higher rank” as
prescribed under sub-paragraph (d) of Sec. 4. Hence, not falling within the “rank” requirement
stated in Sec. 4, exclusive jurisdiction over petitioner is vested in the regular courts.
It is the RTC that has jurisdiction over the offense charged. Under Sec. 9 of RA 3019, as
amended, the commission of any of the unlawful acts or omissions enumerated in Secs. 3, 4, 5
and 6 shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than 6 years and 1 month nor more than
15 years. Moreover, it is the prosecutor, not the Ombudsman, who has the authority to file the
corresponding information/s against the petitioner in the RTC. The Ombudsman exercises
prosecutorial powers only in cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
