jurisdiction of the sandiganbayan

For an offense to fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, the following requisites must concur: (1) the offense committed is a violation of (a) R.A. 3019, as amended (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), (b) R.A. 1379 (the law on ill-gotten wealth), (c) Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code (the law on bribery), (d) Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986 (sequestration cases), or (e) other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes; (2) the offender committing the offenses in items (a), (b), (c) and (e) is a public official or employee[42] holding any of the positions enumerated in paragraph A of Section 4; and (3) the offense committed is in relation to the office.[43]

x x x

In Montilla v. Hilario,[46] this Court held that for an offense to be committed in relation to the office, the relation between the crime and the office must be direct and not accidental, such that the offense cannot exist without the office.
People v. Montejo,[47] by way of exception, enunciated the principle that although public office is not an element of the offense charged, as long as the offense charged in the information is intimately connected with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance, though improper or irregular, of his official functions, the accused is held to have been indicted for an offense committed in relation to his office.
These rulings were reiterated in Sanchez v. Demetriou,[48] Republic v. Asuncion,[49] Cunanan v. Arceo,[50] People v. Magallanes,[51] Alarilla v. Sandiganbayan [52] and Soller v. Sandiganbayan.[53]
That the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information, and not by the evidence presented by the parties at the trial,[54] is settled.
As early as 1954, we pronounced that “the factor that characterizes the charge is the actual recital of the facts.” “The real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information.”[55] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 154886. July 28, 2005]
LUDWIG H. ADAZA, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (the First DIVISION composed of Justices GREGORIO S. ONG, CATALINO R. CASTANEDA, JR. and FRANCISCO H. VILLARUZ, JR. and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by SPECIAL PROSECUTION OFFICE, respondents.