Excerpts from the book "Certiorari Conundrum" by Thads Bentulan
Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
The Sandiganbayan is a special court. It has both
original and appellate jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax
Appeals (CTA) are now of the same level as the Court of Appeals (CA). It
decides cases in divisions similar to the Court of Appeals. Similar to the
Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan en banc cannot decide cases unlike
the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA).
Sandiganbayan: Original exclusive
jurisdiction
The Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction
over the following cases:
1.
Violation of RA 3019
(Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices), RA 1379 (unlawfully acquired property), and
the Revised Penal Code (Book II, Title VII, Chapter II, Section 2), and,
2.
Other offenses committed by public employees (and
government-owned or controlled corporations) in relation to their office and
private individuals charged with them, where one of the accused is an official
occupying the following positions (permanent or interim) at the time of the
commission of the offense:
2a.
Officials of the executive
branch classified as Grade 27 or higher;
2b.
Members of the Judiciary
2c.
Members of the
Constitutional Commissions
2d.
Members of Congress
2e.
All other national and
local officials classified as Grade 27 or higher.
3.
Civil and criminal cases
filed under EO 1,2,14, and 14-A (RA 7975 Sec. 2, RA 8249)
Sandiganbayan: Concurrent original
jurisdiction with the SC
Under EO 1,2,14, and 14-A (RA 7975 Sec. 2, RA 8249), the
Marcos ill-gotten wealth cases, the Sandiganbayan has concurrent original
jurisdiction with the Supreme Court in the
1.
special civil actions of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and quo
warranto,
2.
the special proceeding of habeas
corpus, and
3.
provisional remedies of
injunction and ancillary writs in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
Sandiganbayan: Appellate jurisdiction
1.
The Sandiganbayan has appellate
jurisdiction over decisions of the RTC in the exercise of the latter’s original
or appellate jurisdiction under PD 1606 as amended (RA 8249 Sec. 5). The notice
of appeal must be filed with 15 days of the promulgation of judgment. Rule 122
of the Rules of Court provide the manner for this appeal.
2.
Note: In my opinion,
under the doctrine of judicial hierarchy enunciated in both St Martin Funeral Homes
vs. NLRC, and People vs. Mateo, whenever the RTC imposes the death penalty,
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment under BP129 and RA8249 instead of the
case being elevated directly to the Supreme Court, by implication of People vs.
Mateo, the RTC judgment must be reviewed first by the Sandiganbayan. I will
discuss the People vs. Mateo case, decided July 7, 2004, in the next part of
this series.
