5. DANILO A.
DUNCANO, Petitioner,
vs.
HON. SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts:
This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Rules) with prayer for issuance of
preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order seeks to reverse and set aside the Resolution1
and Order2 of respondent Sandiganbayan which denied petitioner's Motion to Dismiss on the ground of
la9k of jurisdiction.
Petitioner Danilo A. Duncano is the Regional Director with Salary Grade 26. The Office of
the Special Prosecutorfiled a criminal case against him for violation of Section 8, in relation to
Section 11 of R.A. No. 6713,5 allegedly committed as follows:
Accused DUNCANO a high ranking public officer, being the Regional Director and as such
is under an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of his assets, liabilities
and net worth and financial and business interests, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
criminally fail to disclose in his Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Networth (SALN),
his financial and business interests/connection in Documail Provides Corporation and Don Plus
Trading of which he and his family are the registered owners thereof, and the 1993 Nissan Patrol
motor vehicle registered in the name of his son VINCENT LOUIS P. DUNCANO which are part of
his assets, to the damage and prejudice of public interest.
Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss With Prayer to Defer the Issuance of Warrant of
Arrest7 before respondent Sandiganbayan. As the OSP alleged, he admitted that he is a Regional
Director with Salary Grade 26. He assrted that he Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction to try and
hear the case because he is an official of the executive branch occupying the position of a
Regional Director but with a compensation that is classified as below Salary Grade 27.
The OSP argued that a reading of the subject law would clearly show that the
qualification as to Salary Grade 27 and higher applies only to officials of the executive branch
other than the Regional Director and those specifically enumerated. This is so since the term
"Regional Director" and "higher" are separated by the conjunction "and," which signifies that
these two positions are different, apart and distinct, words but are conjoined together "relating
one to the other" to give effect to the purpose of the law.
Thus, the he Sandiganbayan promulgated its Resolution, denies the motion to dismiss.
The respondent court ruled that the position of Regional Director is one of those
exceptions where the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction even if such position is not Salary Grade
27.
Issue: Whether, according to P.D. No. 1606, as amended by Section 4 of R.A No. 8249, only
Regional Directors with Salary Grade of 27 and higher, as classified under R.A. No. 6758, fall
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Ruling: The court find merit in the petition.
Setion 4 states that the Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all
cases involving:
"A. Violations of RA 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
Those that fall within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan are: (1) officials of
the executive branch with Salary Grade 27 or higher, and (2) officials specifically enumerated
regardless of their salary grades.31 While the first part of Section 4 (A) covers only officials of
the executive branch with Salary Grade 27 and higher, its second part specifically includes other
executive officials whose positions may not be of Salary Grade 27 and higher but who are by
express provision of law placed under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.32
That the phrase "otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher" qualifies "regional
director and higher" is apparent from the Sponsorship Speech of Senator Raul S. Roco which
eventually became R.A. Nos. 7975 and 8249, respectively:
As proposed by the Committee, the Sandiganbayan shall exercise original jurisdiction
over the cases assigned to it only in instances where one or more of the principal accused are
officials occupying the positions of regional director and higher or are otherwise classified as
Grade 27 and higher by the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989, whether in a
permanent, acting or interim capacity at the time of the commission of the offense. The
jurisdiction, therefore, refers to a certain grade upwards, which shall remain with the
Sandiganbayan.
Following this disquisition, the paragraph of Section 4 which provides that if the accused
is occupying a position lower than SG 27, the proper trial court has jurisdiction, can only be
properly interpreted as applying to those cases where the principal accused is occupying a
position lower than SG 27 and not among those specifically included in the enumeration in
Section 4. Stated otherwise, except for those officials specifically included in Section 4
regardless of their salary grades, over whom the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction, all other public
officials below SG 27 shall be under the jurisdiction of the proper trial courts "where none of
the principal accused are occupying positions corresponding to SG 27 or higher." By this
construction, the entire Section 4 is given effect.
Petitioner is not an executive official with Salary Grade 27 or higher. Neither does he
hold any position particularly enumerated in Section 4. Therein, the accused was the Regional
Director of the Land Transportation Office, Region IX, Zamboanga City, but at the time of the
commission of the crime in 1992, his position was classified as Director II with Salary Grade 26.
The SB do not have jurisdiction over the case. In ruling in favor of its jurisdiction, even
though petitioner admittedly occupied the position of Director II with Salary Grade "26" under
the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), the
Sandiganbayan incurred in serious error of jurisdiction, and acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction in suspending petitioner from office, entitling petitioner to the
reliefs prayed for.
