AZARCON VS SANDIGANBAYAN, GR NO.

116033, February 26, 1997

(Section 4. 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 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.
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 co-principal,

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 determines 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.