Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sandiganbayan>
<Enrile Inton>
AZARCON v. SANDIGANBAYAN
CASE NO.
PANGANIBAN, J.
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 Jaime Ancla, a sub-contractor 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.
ISSUES
1.
ARTICLES/LAWS INVOLVED
Sec 7, Art. 11
<Enrile Inton>
The foregoing provisions unequivocally specify the only instances when the Sandiganbayan will
have jurisdiction over a private individual:
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.