This Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeks to  set  aside  the  Sandiganbayan  Sixth  Division's (Sandiganbayan) Resolutions dated October 10, 2017^[1] and November 17, 2017^[2] in SB-CRM- 17-0736 and SB-CRM-17-0737, which respectively denied petitioner's Alternative Motion to Quash or To Suspend Proceedings and Motion for Reconsideration.

Petitioner was charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 and Article 217, in relation to paragraph 4 of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, under two (2) Informations, which read as follows:

SB-CRM-17-0736

That on March 29, 2010, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in  the  City  of  Manila,  Metro  Manila,  Philippines,  and  within  the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused PROCESO LAWAS MALIGALIG, a public officer, being then the President and a member of the Board of Directors of the Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Co., Inc. (BASECO), a government-owned or controlled corporation, in the discharge of his administrative .and/or official functions and taking advantage of his official position, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, with evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, execute a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim in favor of Northstar Transport Facilities, Inc. (Northstar) without authority from the BASECO Board of Directors, and receive from Northstar the amount of PhP3,554,000.00 as full settlement of its total arrearages of PhP4,819,198.13 to BASECO for the period May 2009 to February 2010 covered by the Contract of Lease dated September 15, 2006 between BASECO, as lessor, and Northstar, as lessee, over BASECO properties including the eastern portion of the land area  known  as  Engineer  Island  and  accretions  in  Port  Area, Manila totaling 17,896.10 square meters more or less, and not remit the amount of PhP3,554,000.00 to BASECO, causing undue injury to BASECO and the Government in the total amount of PhP4,819,198.13 that was due from Northstar, and giving Northstar unwarranted benefits and advantage.

CONTRARY TO LAW."

SB-CRM-17-0737

That on March 29, 2010, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in  the  City  of  Manila,  Metro  Manila,  Philippines,  and  within  the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused PROCESO LAWAS MALIGALIG, a public officer, being then the President and a member of the Board of Directors of the Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Co., Inc. (BASECO), a government-owned or controlled corporation, and as such by reason of his office and duties is responsible and accountable for public funds entrusted to and received by him, committing the complex crime charged herein while in the performance of or in relation to office and taking advantage of his official position, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully  and  feloniously,  appropriate,  take  or  misappropriate  the amount of PhP3,554,000.00 under his charge and custody and which he received  from  Northstar  Transport  Facilities,  Inc.  (Northstar)  as  full settlement of its total arrearages of PhP4,819,198.13 to BASECO for the period May 2009 to February 2010 under the Contract of Lease dated September 15, 2006 between BASECO, as lessor, and Northstar, as lessee, over BASECO properties including the eastern portion of the land area known as Engineer Island and accretions in Port Area, Manila totaling 17,896.10 square meters more or less, by means of falsifying the Release, Waiver and Quitclaim dated March 29, 2010 that he executed in favor of Northstar by making an untruthful statement therein that he executed a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim to implement the Resolutions approved on March 24, 2010 by the BASECO Board of Directors in its special board meeting  when, in  truth  and  in fact, said  statement  is  absolutely false because the BASECO Board of Directors neither approved nor issued such Resolutions, and for which the accused has a legal obligation to disclose the truth about the absence of such Resolutions, to  the damage and prejudice of BASECO, the Government and the public interest in the aforestated amount.

CONTRARY  TO LAW."^[3]

On May 26, 2017, petitioner filed before the Sandiganbayan an Alternative Motion to Quash or To Suspend Proceedings^[4]   tmotion to quash or to suspend proceedings) on the ground that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction  over  his  person  and  that  the  Office  of  Ombudsman  had  no authority to file the above-quoted  Informations  against  him.   Petitioner, in the  alternative,  also  moved  for the  suspension  of  his  arraignment  on  the ground  of  a  prejudicial  question.  The  People,  through  the  Office  of  the Special  Prosecutor   (OSP),  opposed   petitioner's  motion  to  quash  or  to suspend proceedings,  insisting  on its authority to file the Informations  and on  the  jurisdiction   of  the  Sandiganbayan   to  hear  the  case  against  the petitioner.  The OSP argued that there was no prejudicial question involved, since the issue on the ownership of shares of BASECO will not affect any of the elements of the crimes charged in the Informations.

On October  10, 2017, the Sandiganbayan  denied petitioner's Motion to Quash or to Suspend Proceedings.   His motion for reconsideration having been denied in the Sandiganbayan's Resolution dated November  17, 2017, petitioner interposes the present petition raising the following issues:

I

WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT  COURT ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION  IN ISSUING  THE RESOLUTION DATED  OCTOBER 10, 2017 INSOFAR  AS IT HELD THAT IT HAS JURISDICTION  OVER THE CASE AND THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED.

II

WHETHER  OR NOT THE RESPONDENT  COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DENYING PETITIONER'S ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO QUASH OR TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS DATED MAY  12, 2017 AND  MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED OCTOBER 17,2017 (SIC).^[5]

Petitioner  contends  that  the  Bataan  Shipyard  and  Engineering  Co., Inc.  (BASECO)  is  not  a  government-owned   or  controlled   corporation. Invoking  the  ruling  in  BASECO  v.  PCGG,  et  al.,^[6] he  argued  that,  while BASECO was under sequestration  by the Presidential Commission  on Good Government  (PCGG),  there  was  no  divestment  of  title over  the  seized property since the PCGG has only powers of administration  and that it may not exercise acts of ownership over the property sequestered, frozen or provisionally  taken over. Petitioner alleged that he bought one (1) share of stock of the company in 2001 and, thus, he was entitled to be voted upon as member of the Board of Directors (BOD)  of BASECO.   He theorizes that while the former President intimated her desire to the PCGG that he be made a member of the BOD, the same would not nevertheless  have materialized had he not acquired  a share of stock in the company.   He was elected as member of the BOD and, eventually,  as President of BASECO every year until he was unceremoniously replaced in 2011.

Petitioner posits that since BASECO is a private corporation under the tutelage of PCGG  as conservator  and that he was elected to the BOD by reason of his being a stockholder of the company, he cannot be considered as a public official or employee within the definition of Section 2(b) of R.A. No. 3019,  otherwise  known  as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Not being a public official or employee, he asserts that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over his person and that, consequently, the Office of the Ombudsman also has no jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation against  him.  Petitioner,  thus,  concludes  that  the  Sandiganbayan  gravely abused  its  discretion   in  denying  his  Motion  to  Quash  or  To  Suspend Proceedings  dated  May  12,  2017  and  Motion  for  Reconsideration  dated October 17, 2017.

Sought for comment to the present petition, the OSP contend that the Sandiganbayan  has jurisdiction  over the case and person  of petitioner.   It argued that the jurisdiction of a court in criminal cases is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. Once it is shown that it has jurisdiction,  the  court  may  validly  take  cognizance  of  the  case  and  the court's jurisdiction to try a criminal case is determined at the time of the institution of the action, not at the time of the commission  of the offense. The  OSP  insists   that  the  two  (2)  Informations   against  the  petitioner sufficiently state the elements of the crime charged. It points out petitioner's own admission in his Counter-Affidavit dated June 30, 2014 that he was appointed as member of the BOD of BASECO, and later as its President by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

It stressed that Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 10660, enumerates the officials and offenses or felonies cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.   The crimes charged against the petitioner, who is a public officer as defined by Section 2 ofP.D. No. 1602, are expressly stated in the Section 4(a) and (b), hence, within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.   Pursuant to R.A. No. 6770, or The Ombudsman Law, it is the Office of the Ombudsman that has the authority to file the cases against the petitioner with the Sandiganbayan.

The OSP insists  hat  BASECO is a government-owned or controlled corporation   (GOCC),  as  classified  by  the  Governance   Commission  for GOCCs under the category GOCC 's Supervised by the PCGG.  It argues that the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is not undermined by the fact that BASECO is under sequestration by the PCGG, but instead reinforces the proposition that BASECO  is a government entity utilizing public funds.   It alleged  that  the  issue  of  BASECO's ownership  has  long  been  settled  as pointed out by the Sandiganbayan  in its assailed Resolution  dated October 10, 2017.   Citing  Section  7, Rule  Ill of the  Revised  Rules  of Criminal Procedure,  it  asseverates  that  there  was  no  prejudicial  question  involved which would justify the suspension of the criminal  proceedings  against the petitioner.   The OSP contends that by filing a motion to quash, petitioner hypothetically admits the facts alleged in the Informations and that the Sandiganbayan  did not gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to quash.  It additionally alleged that the denial of a motion to quash is not correctible by certiorari.

In   their   separate   Comments,   the   PCGG   and   BASECO   alleged essentially the same arguments in asserting that petitioner is a public officer. It was asserted in their respective Comments that BASECO's income, as a sequestered  corporation, are remitted to the PCGG and then turned-over  to the Bureau of Treasury.  The members of the board of directors of BASECO were elected  by virtue  of "Desire  Letters"  issued  by the  President  of the Republic of the Philippines and that petitioner sat as President and Director of BASECO by virtue of the appointing power of the President.  As such, he handled  the  affairs  of  BASECO  in  representation  and  protection  of  the interests of the government.   Thus, petitioner is a public officer exercising functions for public benefit, namely, management of sequestered corporation and earning income for the government.

The Petition is not impressed with merit.

In law, nothing is as elementary as the concept of jurisdiction, for the same is the foundation upon which the courts exercise their power of adjudication, and without which, no rights or obligation could emanate from any  decision   or  resolution.^[7]    Jurisdiction   is  defined   as  the  power  and authority of a court to hear, try and decide a case.^[8]     The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan  is  provided  in  P.D.  No.  1606,  as  amended  by  R.A.  No. 10660, which, insofar as relevant in this case, reads as follows:

"Sec.  4.  Jurisdiction. The  Sandiganbayan  shall  exercise  original jurisdiction in all cases involving:

a. Violations  of Republic Act 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  of  the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the principal 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:

(1)   Officials   of   the   executive   branch   occupying   the positions  of regional  director  and higher,  otherwise classified as grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation  and Position  Classification  Act  of  1989  (Republic  Act  No. 6758), specifically including:

xxxx

(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned   or   controlled    corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations;

, b.  Other  offenses  or  felonies  whether  simple  or  complexed with   other   crimes   committed   by  the  public   officials   and employees   mentioned   in  subsection   (a)  of  this  section  in relation to their office."

In  this  case,  the  two  (2)  Informations  filed  against  the  petitioner before the Sandiganbayan  showed  that he was  charged  with Violation  of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, and Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Public Document.  The Information for violation of the anti graft  law  asserts  that  petitioner, "in  the  discharge  of  his  administrative and/or official  functions  and taking advantage  of his official position, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, with evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence" performed the acts constitutive of the offense charged.   On   the   other   hand,   the   charge   for   the   complex   crime   of Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Public Document was allegedly  committed  by the  petitioner "while  in the performance  of or in relation to his office and taking advantage of his official position."   Both Informations  also alleged that petitioner is a public officer "being  then the President and a member of the Board of Directors of the Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Co., Inc. (BASECO), a government-owned or -controlled corporation. "   Thus,  on  the  basis  of  the  allegations  in  the  accusatory Informations alone, there is sufficient basis for the Sandiganbayan to take cognizance of the two (2) cases against the petitioner.   The jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information.  And once if it shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case.^[9]

Petitioner's defense that he was not a public officer at the time of the alleged  commission  of the offense does not hold water.   It is well-settled that,  "jurisdiction   is  not  affected  by the  pleas  or  the  theories  set  up  by defendant or respondent  in an answer, a motion to dismiss, or a motion to quash.  Otherwise,  jurisdiction  would  become  dependent  almost  entirely upon the whims of defendant or respondent." ^[10] Besides, his admission in his Counter-Affidavit filed before the Office of the Ombudsman that he was appointed as member of the Board of Directors, and eventually as President of  BASECO   by   former   President   Gloria   Macapagal-Arroyo,  militates against his claim that he was not a public officer.  A public officer is defined in the Revised  Penal Code as "any  person who, by direct provision  of the law, popular election, or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance  of public functions in the Government  of the Philippine Islands,  or  shall  perform  in  said  Government,  or  in  any  of  its  branches, public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class."^[11]      The  concept  of  a  public  officer  was  expounded  further  in  the Serana  case,^[12] where it was held that, "An  investment  in an individual of some portion of the sovereign functions of the governmeni,  to be exercised by  him  for  the  benefit  of  the  public  makes  one  a  public  officer."    As President of a sequestered company like BASECO, petitioner is expected to perform functions that would benefit the public in general.

Thus, the Sandiganbayan  did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's Motion to Quash and Motion for Reconsideration.   It definitely has jurisdiction over the case and over the person of the petitioner since offenses for violation of R.A. No. 3019 and the complex crime of Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Public Document and petitioner's   position,  as  alleged  in  the  two  (2)  Informations,  are  clearly among those offenses  and felonies and public officers  enumerated  in P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 10660.

WHEREFORE, premises  considered,  the Petition  for Certiorari  is DENIED for utter lack of merit.  Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.


Peralta, C.J., (Chairperson), Caguioa, Reyes, J., Lazaro-Javier, and Lopez, JJ., concur

---

^[1] Penned  by Associate  Justice  Karl B. Miranda,  with Associate  Justices  Sarah  Jane T. Fernandez and Michael Frederick L. Musngi concurring; rollo, pp. 35-41.

^[2]   Id. at 42-44.

^[3] Id. at 36-38.

^[4] Id. at 47-58.

^[5] Id. at 12.

^[6] 234 Phil. 180 (1987).

^[7] Glynna Foronda-Crystal v. Aniana Lawas Son, G.R. No. 221815, November 29,2017

^[8] Id.

^[9] Navaja v. Hon. De Castro,  et al., 761 Phil. 142, 151 (2015), citing Foz, Jr. etal. v. People, 618 Phil. 120, 130 (2009).     .

^[10] Serana v. Sandiganbayan, et al., 566 Phil. 224, 251 (2008).

^[11]   Zoleta v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), et al., 765 Phil. 39, 53 (2015).

^[12] Supra note 6, at 249-250.