Barriga vs. Sandiganbayan Facts: VIRGINIO E. VILLAMOR and DINAH C. BARRIGA, both public office!, bein" then the Municipal Ma#oand Municipal Accountant, e!pecti$el# , of the Municipalit# of Ca%en, Cebu, and a! !uch, had in theipo!!e!!ion and cu!tod# public fund! a%ountin" to &'EN&() &HREE &HO*+AND OR&() +EVEN AND -/01E+O+ 21-3, 45.-6, 1hilippine Cuenc#, intended fothe pa#%ent of i$e 276 oll! of 1ol#eth#lene pipe! to be u!ed in the Cote)Cantu%o" 'ate+#!te% 1o8ect of the Municipalit# of Ca%en, Cebu, fo9hich the# ae accountable b # ea!on of the dutie! of theioffice, in !uch capacit# an d co%%ittin" the offen!e in elation to office, conni$in" and confedeatin" to"etheand %utuall# helpin" each othe, did then and thee 9illfull#, unla9full# and feloniou!l# %i!appopiate, ta:e, e%be;;le and con$et into theio9n pe!onal u!e and benefit !aid a%ount of 1-3,45.-, and de!pite de%and! %ade upon the% to account fo!aid a%ount, the# ha$e failed to do !o, to the da%a"e and pe8udice of the "o$en%ent. &he +andi"anba#an "anted the %otion and ad%itted the A%ended Info%ation!. &he petitionefiled a Motion to <ua!h the !aid A%ended Info%ation! on the "ound that unde+ection 4 of Republic Act No. =->4, the +andi"anba#an ha! no 8ui!dict ion o$ethe ci%e! cha" ed. +he a$eed that the A%ended Info%ation! failed to alle"e and !ho9 the inti%ate elation bet9een the ci%e! cha"ed and heofficial dutie! a! %unicipal accountant, 9hich ae condition! sine qua nonfothe "aft cout to ac?uie 8ui!diction o$ethe !aid offen!e. +he a$eed that the po!ecution and the Co%%i!!ion on A udit ad%itted, and no le!! than thi! Cout held in Tan v. Sandiganbayan,@7that a %unicipal accountant i! not an accountable office. +he alle"ed that the felonie! of %al$e!ation and ille"al u!e of public fund!, fo9hich !he i! cha"ed, ae not included in Chapte00, +ection -, &itle VII, Boo: II, of the Re$i!ed 1enal Codehen ce, the +andi"anba#an ha! no 8ui!diction o$ethe !aid ci%e!. Moeo$e, hepo!ition a! %unicipal accountant i! cla!!ified a! +ala# Gade 2+G6 -4. On Octobe>, -3, the +andi"anba#an i!!ued a Re!olution @>den#in" the %otion of the petitione. &he %otion foecon!ideation theeof 9a!, li:e9i!e, denied, 9ith the "aft cout holdin" that the applicable ulin" of thi! Cout 9a! Montilla v. Hilario, @0i.e., that an offen!e i! co%%itted in elation to public office 9hen thee i! a diect, n ot %eel# accidental, elation bet9een the ci%e cha"ed and the office of the accu!ed !uch that, in a le"al !en!e, the offen!e 9ould not ei!t 9ithout the officein othe9od!, the office %u!t be a con!tituent ele%ent of the ci%e a! defined in the !tatute. &he "aft cout futheheld that the off ice! of the %unicipal %a#oand the %unicipal accountan t 9ee con!tituent ele%ent! of the felonie! of %al$e!ation and ille"al u!e of public fund!. &he "aft cout e%pha!i;ed that the ulin"! of thi! Cout i n People v. Montejo @00andLacson v. Executive Secretary @0-appl# onl# 9hee the office held b# the accu!ed i! not a con!tit uent ele%ent of the ci%e! cha"ed. In !uch ca!e!, the Info%ation %u!t contain !pecific factual alle"ation! !ho9in" that the co%%i!!ion of the ci%e! cha"ed i! inti%atel# connected 9ith oelated to the p efo%ance of the accu!ed public office! public function!. In fine, the "aft cout opined, the ba!ic ule i ! that enunciated b# thi! Cout in Montilla v. Hilario, and the ulin" of thi! Cout inPeople v. Montejo i! the eception. Ruling:
