CASE NO. 11. Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan (1997)

11. Azarcon vs.
Sandiganbayan
TOPIC: Private Person in charge of Public Funds
Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 116033
February 26, 1997
FACTS:
Alfredo Azarcon (petitioner) owned and operated an earth-moving business,

hauling dirt and ore. His services were contracted by Paper Industries Corporation of
the Philippines (PICOP). Occasionally, he engaged the services of sub-contractors like
Jaime Ancla whose trucks were left at the former’s premises.
On May 25, 1983, a Warrant of Distraint of Personal Property was issued by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (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.
Then, 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 Azarcon’s 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 Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a private individual designated by
BIR as a custodian of distrained property.
RULING:
No, the Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the
petitioner as he is not a public officer. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that
Sandiganbayan’s decision was null and void for lack of jurisdiction.
Sec. 4 of Presidential Decree 1606 specified 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.
Here, upon going over the Information, the Court clarifies the fact that there’s no
charge against petitioner Azarcon of becoming a co-principal, accomplice or
accessory to a public officer committing an offense under the Sandiganbayan’s
jurisdiction.
Thus, unless the petitioner be proven a public officer, Sandiganbayan will have
no jurisdiction over the crime charged. Art. 203 of the RPC determines who public
officers are (see provision below). Granting arguendo 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, Azarcon in this case is 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 BIR’s 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. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over him.
CONCEPTS & LAWS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE:
REVISED PENAL CODE. Art. 203. Who are public officers. — For the purpose of
applying the provisions of this and the preceding titles of this book, 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, of 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, shall be deemed to be a public officer.
PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
The term public officer may be used in a generic term (inclusive), thus it refers to all who are
employed in the government service. To be more specific, the phrase public officers and
employees is used to distinguish government personnel based on position.
Public officers are classified as: either military or civil; either national or local; either elective or
appointive; either executive, legislative or judiciary.
Other classifications: career or non-career; career executive service or non-career service.

CASE NO. 11. Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan (1997)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE NO. 11. Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan (1997)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE NO. 11. Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan (1997)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11. Azarcon vs.

TOPIC: Private Person in charge of Public Funds

Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan

Alfredo Azarcon (petitioner) owned and operated an earth-moving business,

The BIR’s power authorizing a private individual to act as a depositary cannot

CONCEPTS & LAWS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE:

PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

Other classifications: career or non-career; career executive service or non-career service.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.