Rodrigo v.

Sandiganbayan

Facts:
Conrado B. Rodrigo and Reynaldo G. Mejica are the Mayor and Municipal Planning and
Development Coordinator, respectively, of San Nicolas, Pangasinan, while Alejandro A. Facundo
is the former Municipal Treasurer of the same municipality.
In June 1992, the Municipality of San Nicolas, thru Mayor Rodrigo, entered into an
agreement with Philwood Construction, represented by Larry Lu, for the electrification of
Barangay Caboloan, San Nicolas, for the sum of P486,386.18, requiring the installation of the 2
units diesel power generator, battery starter and other related installations.
In September 1992, Mejica, the Planning and Development Coordinator of San Nicolas,
prepared an Accomplishment Report stating that the Caboloan Power Generation project was
97.5% accomplished. Said report was supposedly approved by Mayor Rodrigo and confirmed by
Larry Lu. On the basis of said report, the municipal treasurer effected payment to Philwood
Construction.
In August 1993, Rodrigo et. al. received a Notice of Disallowance from the Provincial
Auditor of Pangasinan, Atty. Agustin Chan, Jr., who found that as per COA evaluation of the
electrification project, only 60.0171% of the project was actually accomplished. The Provincial
Auditor thus disallowed the amount of P160,910.46.
Rodrigo et. al. requested the Provincial Auditor to lift the notice of disallowance and to re-
inspect the project. They reiterated their plea in a letter to the Provincial Auditor attaching
therewith a "Certificate of Acceptance and Completion" signed by Clemente Arquero, Jr.,
Barangay Captain of Caboloan, Eusebio Doton, President of the Cabaloan Electric Cooperative.
The Provincial Auditor, however, allegedly did not act on their requests.
On 10 January 1994, the Provincial Auditor filed a criminal complaint for estafa before the
Ombudsman against Rodrigo et. al., Larry Lu and Ramil Ang of Philwood Construction.
In 1995, the Ombudsman approved the filing of an information against Rodrigo et. al. for
violation of Anti-Graft Law before the Sandiganbayan. Rodrigo et. al. filed a motion for
reinvestigation before the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan granted it. The Office of the
Special Prosecutor issued a memorandum recommending that the charges against Rodrigo et. al.
be maintained. The Ombudsman approved said memorandum. Rodrigo et. al. then filed before
the Sandiganbayan a motion to quash the information alleging, as grounds therefor that (1) the
facts alleged in the information did not constitute an offense, and (2) the same information
charged more than one offense. Motion to quash denied. The prosecution moved to suspend
Rodrigo et. al. pendente lite. Rodrigo et. al. opposed the motion on the ground that the
Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction over them. The Sandiganbayan ruled that it had jurisdiction
over them and ordered their suspension pendente lite. Hence, this petition.

Issue:
Whether there was violation of due process by the filing of the complaint by the Provincial
Auditor

Held:
No. Rodrigo et. al. argues that it is the duty of the auditor, by virtue of its issuance of
disallowance, to decide on their written explanation. And the auditor’s hasty filing of criminal
complaint against them denied them due process. However, Sec. 82 of State Audit Code states
that the suspension shall become a disallowance if the charge of suspension is "not satisfactorily
explained within ninety-day period within which the accountable officer may answer the charge
of suspension may nevertheless be extended by the Commission or the auditor for good cause
shown. It must be noted that disallowance and suspension are two distinct concepts. A
disallowance is the disapproval of a credit or credits to an account/accountable officer's
accountability due to non-compliance with law or regulations. Thus, the auditor may disallow an
expenditure/transaction which is unlawful or improper. A suspension, on the other hand, is the
deferment of action to debit/credit the account/accountable officer's accountability pending
compliance with certain requirements. A notice of suspension is issued on transactions or
accounts which could otherwise have been settled except for some requirements, like lack of
supporting documents or certain signatures. It is also issued on transactions or accounts the
legality/propriety of which the auditor doubts but which he may later allow after satisfactory or
valid justification is submitted by the parties concerned. Rodrigo et. al. misinterpreted Section
44.6.4 of the Code. The auditor actually issued a disallowance and not a mere suspension and
that the "written explanation" was "for the purpose of lifting the suspension or extending the
time to answer beyond the ninety (90) day period prior to its conversion into a disallowance," not
for contesting a disallowance. In fact, under COA Circular No. 85-156-B, the Provincial Auditor is
duty-bound to file a complaint before the Ombudsman when, from the evidence obtained during
the audit, he is convinced that "criminal prosecution is warranted." The Provincial Auditor need
not resolve the opposition to the notice of disallowance and the motion for re-inspection pending
in his office before he institutes such complaint so long as there are sufficient grounds to support
the same. The right to due process of Rodrigo et. al. to the complaint, insofar as the criminal
aspect of the case is concerned, is not impaired by such institution. They will still have the
opportunity to confront the accusations contained in the complaint during the preliminary
investigation. They may still raise the same defenses contained in their motion to lift the
disallowance, as well as other defenses, in the preliminary investigation. Should the Provincial
Auditor later reverse himself and grant respondent's motions, or should the COA, or this Court,
subsequently absolve them from liability during the pendency of the preliminary investigation,
the respondents may ask the prosecuting officer to take cognizance of such decision. The
prosecuting officer may then accord such decision its proper weight.

Issue:
Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Rodrigo et. al.

Held:
Yes. Although RA 7975 limits the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to those government
officials having Salary Grade 27 or higher, municipal mayors were re-classified from Salary Grade
24 to Salary Grade 27 by virtue of RA 6758 which took effect on July 1, 1989. Rodrigo however,
claim that at the time of the commission of the alleged crime on or about 2 September 1992,
Mayor Rodrigo, the highest public ranking public official impleaded in this case, was receiving a
monthly salary of P10,441.00. Such amount 6758 is supposedly equivalent to a fourth step
increment in Grade 24 under the Salary Schedule prescribed in Section 7 of R.A. No. 6758. This
argument is too simplistic.
Section 5, Article IX-C of the Constitution provides that the Congress shall provide for the
standardization of compensation of government officials and employees, including those in
government-owned or controlled corporation with original charters, taking into account the
nature of the responsibilities pertaining to, and the qualifications required for their positions.
Congress enacted R.A. No. 6758. Section 2 thereof declares it the policy of the State "to provide
equal pay for substantially equal work and to base differences in pay upon substantive
differences in duties and responsibilities, and qualification requirements of the positions."
To give life to this policy, as well as the constitutional prescription to take into account the
nature of the responsibilities pertaining to, and the qualifications required for the positions of
government officials and employees, Congress adopted the scheme employed in P.D. No. 985 for
classifying positions with comparable responsibilities and qualifications for the purpose of
according such positions similar salaries. This scheme is known as the "Grade," defined in P.D.
No. 985 as including all classes of positions which, although different with respect to kind or
subject matter of work, are sufficiently equivalent as to level of difficulty and responsibilities and
level of qualification requirements of the work to warrant the inclusion of such classes of
positions within one range of basic compensation.
The Grade is therefore a means of grouping positions "sufficiently equivalent as to level of
difficulty and responsibilities and level of qualification requirements of the work" so that that
may be lumped together in "one range of basic compensation."
Thus, Congress, under Section 8 of R.A. No. 6758, fixed the Salary Grades34 ["Salary
Grade" is "the numerical place on the Salary Schedule representing multiple steps or rates which
is assigned to a class.
 That Rodrigo received a salary less than that prescribed for such Grade is explained by
Sections 10 and 19 (b) of R.A. No. 6758 which provides that a local government official's actual
salary may be less than what the Salary Schedule under Section 7 prescribes, depending on the
class and financial capability of his or her respective local government unit. This circumstance,
however, has no bearing on such official's Grade. An official's salary is determined by the Grade
accorded his position, and ultimately by the nature of his position - the level of difficulty and
responsibilities and level of qualification requirements of the work. To give credence to
petitioners' argument that Mayor Rodrigo's salary determines his Grade would be to misconstrue
the provisions of R.A. No. 6758, and ignore the constitutional and statutory policies behind said
law.
Rodrigo’s position having been classified as Grade 27 in accordance with R.A. No. 6758,
and having been charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019, petitioner is subject to the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, as defined by Section 4 a. of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by
Section 2 of R.A. No. 7975