G.R. Nos. 147026-27; September 11, 2009
CAROLINA R. JAVIER, Petitioner, vs. THE FIRST DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Carolina R. Javier was appointed as a private sector representative to the National Book Development Board (NBDB), a government board under the Office of the President. In 1997, she received a cash advance of ₱139,199.00 for an official trip to the Madrid International Book Fair. The trip was canceled, but Javier failed to liquidate or return the cash advance despite repeated demands from the NBDB Resident Auditor and Executive Director. Consequently, two criminal cases were filed against her before the Sandiganbayan: one for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and another for Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. Javier filed motions to quash the informations, arguing that the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction because, as a private sector representative, she was not a “public officer” subject to its authority. The Sandiganbayan denied her motions.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Carolina R. Javier, as a private sector representative appointed to the NBDB, is a “public officer” within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative, upholding the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of the appointment and the functions of the NBDB. While R.A. No. 8047 designates certain NBDB members as private sector representatives, their appointment by the President to a board that performs governmental functions—formulating national book policy and overseeing industry development—constitutes a public office. The Court emphasized that a public office is created by law, with sovereign functions delegated to the occupant. Javier, having taken an oath of office, exercised authority over a government agency’s mandate and received public funds as a cash advance. Her role was not merely advisory but integral to a governmental administrative body. Therefore, she was a “public officer” as defined under the Anti-Graft Law and the Revised Penal Code. The Sandiganbayan correctly assumed jurisdiction over the cases, as the charges stemmed from her alleged misuse of public funds in her official capacity. The denial of the motions to quash was proper, as the informations sufficiently alleged facts constituting the offenses and implicating her status as a public officer accountable for government funds.