Duncano v. Sandiganbayan

Duncano v.
Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 191894; July 15, 2015
Facts:
This petition for certiorari assailing the order of the Sandiganbayan Second Division which
denied petitioner's Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner Duncano was the Regional Director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)
with Salary Grade 26 as classified under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6758. On March 24,
2009, the Ombudsman, filed a criminal case against him for violation of Section 8, in
relation to Section 11 of R.A. No. 6713 on the ground that he wilfully, unlawfully and
criminally failed to disclose in his Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Networth
(SALN) for the year 2002.
Prior to his arraignment, petitioner, Duncano filed a Motion to Dismiss with Prayer to Defer
the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest before respondent Sandiganbayan Second Division.
He asserted that under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1606, as amended by Section 4
(A) (1) of R.A No. 8249,10 the 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 the position of Regional Director was specifically mentioned without
indication as to its salary grade signifies the lawmakers’ intention that officials occupying
such position, regardless of salary grade, fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan.
On August 18, 2009, the Sandiganbayan Second Division promulgated its Resolution
denying the petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of merit. It 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:
W/N the Sandiganbayan is correct in ruling that the case falls within its exclusive
jurisdiction pursuant to P.D. No. 1606, as amended by Section 4 (A) (1) of R.A No. 8249,
in relation to R.A. No. 6758.
Ruling:
NO. The Sandiganbayan is incorrect.
Based on Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 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 in Section 4 (A) (1) (a) to (g), regardless of their
salary grades. 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. Based
on the Sponsorship Speech of Senator Raul S. Roco on Senate Bill Nos. 1353and 844,
which eventually became R.A. Nos. 7975 and 8249, it is the apparent legislative intent
that the phrase "otherwise classified as Grade ‘27’ and higher" qualifies "regional director
and higher".
The cardinal rule, said the Court, in statutory construction is that the particular words,
clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the
whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its
parts and in order to produce a harmonious whole. And courts should adopt a construction
that will give effect to every part of a statute, if at all possible. Ut magis valeat quam pereat
or that construction is to be sought which gives effect to the whole of the statute – its
every word.
Hence, as correctly argued by the petitioner, he Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over

violations of Section 3(a) and (e), Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, unless committed
by public officials and employees occupying positions of regional director and higher with
Salary Grade "27" or higher, under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of
1989 (Republic Act No. 6758) in relation to their office.
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 Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan
incurred a 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.

Duncano v. Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Duncano v. Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Duncano v. Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Duncano v.

NO. The Sandiganbayan is incorrect.

Hence, as correctly argued by the petitioner, he Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over

You might also like