CASE

AZARCON v. SANDIGANBAYAN
268 SCRA 747
February 26, 1997
*JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS
Alfredo Azarcon, a private individual, owned and operated a hauling business and was contracted by the Paper
Industries Corporation of the Philippines. He engaged the services of a sub-contractor, Jaime Ancla, whose dump truck
was left at his (Azarcon) premises. However, the BIR found Ancla to be tax delinquent. Thus, it distrained/seized all of
Anclas properties, including the dump truck left within the premises of Azarcon. A warrant of garnishment was issued
by the BIR, which authorized and obligated Azarcon to be the custodian of the dump truck. With the turn of events,
Ancla terminated his services with Azarcon and surreptitiously removed his dump truck from Azarcons premises
despite the fact that Azarcon was authorized to get hold of the said dump truck, being its custodian. Azarcon then
wrote the BIR to inform them of the circumstances and requested for him to be immediately relieved from any
responsibility.
The BIR then filed a complaint in the Sandiganbayan (SB) against Azarcon and Ancla for malversation of public fund,
with the main contention that Azarcon was deemed to be a public officer, being an authorized custodian of Anclas
truck.
Azarcon was convicted by the Sandiganbayan. Ancla was not yet brought to the SBs jurisdiction at that time.
ISSUES
1. Does the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over a private individual who is charged with malversation of
public funds as a principal after the said individual had been designated by the Bureau of Internal Revenue as
a custodian of distrained property?
1.1 Did such accused become a public officer and therefore subject to the graft courts jurisdiction as a
consequence of such designation by the BIR?
RULING

The Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over Azarcon and Ancla.
To determine the jurisdiction of the SB, the Court reiterated that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the law
at the time of commencement of the action. In this case, the action was instituted with the filing of this information
on January 12, 1990; hence, the applicable statutory provisions are those of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by P.D. No.
1861 on March 23, 1983, but prior to their amendment by R.A. No. 7975 on May 16, 1995.

Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 provided that:
SEC. 4. Jurisdiction. -- The Sandiganbayan shall exercise:
x x x x x x x x x
In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officers or
employees, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with
said public officers and employees.

Azarcon was not charged ALONG WITH a public officer employee, thus the SB has no jurisdiction over him.
Further, no law supports the contention of the Solicitor General and the BIR that Azarcon is deemed to be a public
officer. Although the BIRs authority to designate Azarcon as a custodian of Anclas distrained property was provided
for in the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), the designation did not partake the nature of an appointment to
public office as the NIRC did not provide for the BIR the power to appoint an individual to public office. Such power is
lodged only in the President, or through statutory grant of power.
Clearly, Azarcon did not cease to be a private individual when he agreed to act as depositary of the garnished dump
truck. Therefore, when the information charged him and Jaime Ancla before the Sandiganbayan for malversation of
public funds or property, the prosecution was in fact charging two private individuals without any public officer being
similarly charged as a co-conspirator. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the controversy and
therefore all the proceedings as well as the Decision rendered by Respondent Sandiganbayan, are null and void for
lack of jurisdiction.