AZARCON V.

SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts: Petitioner Alfredo Azarcon owned and operated an earth-moving
business, hauling dirt and ore. His services were contracted by PICOP.
Occasionally,
he
engaged
the
services
of
sub-contractors
like
Jaime Ancla whose trucks were left at the formers premises.
On May 25, 1983, a Warrant of Distraint of Personal Property was issued by
BIR commanding one of its Regional Directors to distraint the
goods, chattels or effects and other personal property of JaimeAncla, a subcontractor of accused Azarcon and a delinquent taxpayer. A Warrant of
Garnishment
was
issued
to
and
subsequently
signed
by
accused Azarcon ordering him to transfer, surrender, transmit and/or remit to
BIR the property in his possession owned by Ancla. Azarcon then volunteered
himself to act as custodian of the truck owned by Ancla.
After some time, Azarcon wrote a letter to the Reg. Dir of BIR stating that
while he had made representations to retain possession of the property
of Ancla, he thereby relinquishes whatever responsibility he had over the said
property since Ancla surreptitiously withdrew his equipment from him. In his
reply, the BIR Reg. Dir. said that Azarcons failure to comply with the
provisions of the warrant did not relieve him from his responsibility.
Along with his co-accused, Azarcon was charged before the Sandiganbayan
with the crime of malversation of public funds or property. On March 8, 1994,
the Sandiganbayan rendered a Decision sentencing the accused to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment ranging from 10 yrs and 1 day of prision mayor in its
maximum period to 17 yrs, 4 mos and 1 day of reclusion temporal. Petitioner
filed a motion for new trial, which was subsequently denied by
Sandiganbayan. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether or not Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a private
individual designated by BIR as a custodian of distrained property.
Held: SC held that the Sandiganbayans decision was null and void for lack of
jurisdiction.
Sec. 4 of PD 1606 provides for the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. It was
specified therein that the only instances when the Sandiganbayan will have
jurisdiction over a private individual is when the complaint charges the
private individual either as a co-principal, accomplice or accessory of a public
officer or employee who has been charged with a crime within its jurisdiction.
The Information does no charge petitioner Azarcon of becoming a coprincipal, accomplice or accessory to a public officer committing an offense
under the Sandiganbayans jurisdiction. Thus, unless the petitioner be proven
a public officer, Sandiganbayan will have no jurisdiction over the crime
charged.
Art. 203 of the RPC determine who public officers are. Granting that the
petitioner, in signing the receipt for the truck constructively distrained by the

BIR, commenced to take part in an activity constituting public functions, he

obviously may not be deemed authorized by popular election. Neither was he
appointed by direct provision of law nor by competent authority. While BIR
had authority to require Azarcon to sign a receipt for the distrained truck, the
National Internal Revenue Code did not grant it power to appoint Azarcon a
public officer. The BIRs power authorizing a private individual to act as a
depositary cannot be stretched to include the power to appoint him as a
public officer. Thus, Azarcon is not a public officer.