GR 116033; (February, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 116033 February 26, 1997
ALFREDO L. AZARCON, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and JOSE C. BATAUSA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Alfredo Azarcon, a private earth-moving contractor, was served a Warrant of Garnishment by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) concerning an Isuzu dump truck owned by his sub-contractor, delinquent taxpayer Jaime Ancla. Azarcon signed a “Receipt for Goods” wherein he acknowledged custody of the distrained truck and promised to safeguard it for the BIR. Later, Azarcon informed the BIR that Ancla had surreptitiously taken back the truck from his premises. Despite this report, BIR Regional Director Jose Batausa filed a complaint.
An Information was filed before the Sandiganbayan charging Azarcon with malversation of public property under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that by signing the receipt and acting as custodian of the distrained property, Azarcon was transformed into a public officer accountable for public property, thereby falling within the jurisdiction of the anti-graft court. Azarcon filed a motion to quash, contesting the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction over his person as a private individual.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over petitioner Alfredo Azarcon, a private individual, charged with malversation of public funds or property based solely on his designation by the BIR as a custodian of distrained property.
RULING
No. The Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused in malversation cases is determined by the nature of his position. Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes only “any public officer” who is accountable for public funds or property. For the Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction under Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended, the accused must be a public officer falling within its enumerated list.
The Court ruled that Azarcon did not become a public officer by virtue of the BIR’s designation. His act of signing the receipt and holding the truck did not constitute an appointment to a public office. He received no compensation, took no oath, and exercised no sovereign functions. He was merely a depositary or a custodian by contract, a bailee under a unilateral undertaking for the benefit of the BIR. His responsibility was civil and contractual, not public and fiduciary. Consequently, as a private individual, he could not be charged with malversation, a crime exclusively applicable to public officers. The Sandiganbayan thus lacked jurisdiction over his person. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be vested by the unilateral act of a government agency through a mere contractual arrangement for safekeeping.