When people search for the “jurisdictional amount” in Sandiganbayan cases, they are usually asking one practical question: does this corruption, graft, bribery, malversation, or public-officer case go to the Sandiganbayan or to the regular courts? In the Philippines, the answer does not depend on the amount alone. It depends on the offense charged, the position or rank of the public officer, whether the act was connected with public office, the amount of alleged government damage or bribery, and even the date when the offense was allegedly committed.

Under the present Sandiganbayan law, the key amount to remember for ordinary graft-type cases is more than ₱1,000,000.00. If the Information filed in court alleges no government damage or bribery, or alleges damage or bribery not exceeding ₱1,000,000.00, the case may belong to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), not the Sandiganbayan, even if the accused is a high-ranking official. This rule comes from Republic Act No. 10660, which amended Presidential Decree No. 1606, the law defining the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. (Supreme Court E-Library)

The Simple Rule: More Than ₱1 Million Usually Points to the Sandiganbayan

For many anti-graft cases involving high-ranking public officials, the practical rule is:

Allegation in the Information	Usual Court
Government damage or bribery is more than ₱1,000,000.00	Sandiganbayan, if the other jurisdictional elements are present
Government damage or bribery is exactly ₱1,000,000.00 or less	RTC
The Information does not allege any government damage or bribery	RTC
None of the accused is a covered high-ranking official	Proper regular court, depending on the offense and penalty

The word “Information” is important. In criminal procedure, an Information is the formal written charge filed by the prosecutor in court. For jurisdiction, courts normally look at what the Information alleges, not what a party later argues in a pleading or press statement.

This is why a case involving ₱999,999.00 and a case involving ₱1,000,001.00 may go to different courts, assuming all other facts are the same. Under R.A. No. 10660, RTC jurisdiction applies when the Information alleges government damage or bribery “not exceeding” ₱1,000,000.00. By implication, the Sandiganbayan threshold is crossed only when the alleged amount exceeds ₱1,000,000.00. (Supreme Court E-Library)

Legal Basis: R.A. No. 10660 and P.D. No. 1606

The Sandiganbayan is a special anti-graft court. Its jurisdiction is primarily governed by P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 7975, R.A. No. 8249, and now R.A. No. 10660.

R.A. No. 10660 provides that the Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over certain cases involving:

Violations of R.A. No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act;
Violations of R.A. No. 1379, the forfeiture law on unlawfully acquired property;
Bribery-related offenses under Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code;
Other offenses or felonies committed by covered public officials in relation to office;
Certain civil and criminal cases connected with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14-A involving ill-gotten wealth cases from the Marcos-era PCGG framework. (Supreme Court E-Library)

But R.A. No. 10660 added a major limitation: the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction where the Information either does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery, or alleges damage or bribery from the same or closely related transactions in an amount not exceeding ₱1,000,000.00. (Supreme Court E-Library)

The Amount Is Not the Only Test

A common mistake is to think that any corruption case above ₱1 million automatically goes to the Sandiganbayan. That is not always correct.

The Sandiganbayan usually needs these elements:

A covered offense, such as graft under R.A. No. 3019, forfeiture under R.A. No. 1379, bribery under the Revised Penal Code, or another offense committed in relation to office;
A covered public officer, usually Salary Grade 27 or higher, or an official specifically listed in the law;
A connection between the offense and the public office, especially for offenses outside the usual anti-graft statutes;
An Information alleging government damage or bribery exceeding ₱1,000,000.00, unless a special jurisdictional rule applies;
The correct timing, because R.A. No. 10660’s jurisdictional amendments apply to offenses committed after its effectivity.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that R.A. No. 10660 transferred certain lower-value or no-amount cases from the Sandiganbayan to the RTC. In Ampongan v. Sandiganbayan, the Court explained that the ₱1 million amendment applies only to cases arising from offenses committed after R.A. No. 10660 took effect on May 5, 2015. (Lawphil)

Who Counts as a Covered High-Ranking Public Official?

For many cases, the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction depends on whether one or more accused are public officials occupying positions covered by the statute at the time of the commission of the offense.

Covered officials include, among others:

Officials of the executive branch occupying positions of regional director and higher, generally Salary Grade 27 and higher;
Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads;
City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads;
Consuls and higher diplomatic officials;
Philippine Army and Air Force colonels, naval captains, and higher-ranking officers;
PNP officers occupying the position of provincial director and those with the rank of senior superintendent or higher;
City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants;
Officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and Office of the Special Prosecutor;
Presidents, directors, trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities, educational institutions, or foundations;
Members of Congress and officials classified as Salary Grade 27 and higher;
Members of the Judiciary, subject to constitutional rules;
Chairpersons and members of Constitutional Commissions;
Other national and local officials classified as Salary Grade 27 and higher.

If none of the accused occupies a covered position, jurisdiction generally goes to the proper regular court, such as the RTC, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, depending on the offense and the usual jurisdictional rules under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. (Lawphil)

Examples of How the ₱1 Million Rule Works

Example 1: City mayor, alleged overpricing of ₱2.5 million

A city mayor is charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 for allegedly approving a procurement contract that caused ₱2.5 million in undue injury to the government.

Because the accused is a covered official and the Information alleges government damage exceeding ₱1 million, the case will usually fall within the Sandiganbayan’s original jurisdiction.

Example 2: High-ranking official, no amount alleged

A national agency official with Salary Grade 28 is charged with graft, but the Information does not allege any government damage or bribery.

Under R.A. No. 10660, the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction if the Information does not allege any damage to the government or bribery. The Supreme Court applied this reasoning in Non v. Office of the Ombudsman, where the Information did not allege any amount of damage or bribery and the Court held that the RTC case should have been filed in a judicial region outside where the officials held office. (Supreme Court E-Library)

Example 3: Exactly ₱1 million alleged

If the Information alleges ₱1,000,000.00 in government damage, that amount does not exceed ₱1 million. The case generally belongs to the RTC under the R.A. No. 10660 threshold.

Example 4: Low-ranking municipal employee, ₱3 million involved

A municipal employee below Salary Grade 27 is accused of malversation or graft involving ₱3 million, and no covered high-ranking official is charged as a co-accused.

Even if the amount is above ₱1 million, the case may still belong to the regular courts because Sandiganbayan jurisdiction also depends on the public officer’s rank or statutory classification.

Example 5: Private contractor charged with a governor

A private contractor is charged as a co-conspirator with a provincial governor in a graft case involving ₱5 million in alleged overpricing.

The private person may be included in the Sandiganbayan case because the jurisdictional anchor is the covered public official and the offense charged in relation to public office.

Plunder Has a Different Amount: ₱50 Million

Do not confuse the Sandiganbayan’s ₱1 million jurisdictional threshold with the ₱50 million threshold for plunder.

Under R.A. No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, plunder is committed when a public officer amasses, accumulates, or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts in the aggregate amount or total value of at least ₱50,000,000.00. (Supreme Court E-Library)

These are two different legal concepts:

Amount	What It Means
More than ₱1,000,000.00	Sandiganbayan jurisdictional threshold for many R.A. No. 10660 cases involving government damage or bribery
At least ₱50,000,000.00	Element of the crime of plunder under R.A. No. 7080, as amended

A ₱10 million graft case may be within Sandiganbayan jurisdiction, but it is not automatically plunder. Plunder requires the specific statutory elements, including a combination or series of acts and at least ₱50 million in ill-gotten wealth.

Why the Date of the Offense Matters

R.A. No. 10660 took effect in 2015. Its jurisdictional amendments do not automatically apply to all old cases.

The Supreme Court has held that the amendment transferring certain no-amount or not-more-than-₱1-million cases to the RTC applies to offenses committed after the effectivity of R.A. No. 10660. In Ampongan v. Sandiganbayan, the Court rejected the accused’s jurisdictional argument because the alleged offense was committed in 2014, before R.A. No. 10660 became effective. (Lawphil)

The same principle appears in later cases such as Fua v. People and People v. Bacaltos, where the Supreme Court reiterated that the R.A. No. 10660 jurisdictional change applies to offenses committed after the law took effect. (Supreme Court E-Library)

This matters in real life because many corruption cases are filed years after the alleged act. A procurement transaction in 2014 and a procurement transaction in 2016 may be treated differently for jurisdictional purposes.

RTC Cases Under R.A. No. 10660 May Be Tried Outside the Official’s Region

R.A. No. 10660 also provides that cases falling under the RTC because of the ₱1 million rule should be tried in a judicial region other than where the official holds office. This is meant to reduce the risk that a powerful official may influence the local court.

In Non v. Office of the Ombudsman, the Supreme Court held that where the Information did not allege government damage or bribery, and the accused officials held office in Pasig City, the case should have been filed in a judicial region outside the National Capital Judicial Region. The RTC of Pasig City was held to have no jurisdiction, and its proceedings were declared void. (Supreme Court E-Library)

For ordinary readers, this means the “proper RTC” is not always the RTC nearest the government office or the place where the transaction happened. Venue can become a serious jurisdictional issue.

How a Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction Question Is Checked in Practice

A practical jurisdiction review usually follows this sequence:

Identify the offense charged. Is it graft under R.A. No. 3019, forfeiture under R.A. No. 1379, bribery under the Revised Penal Code, malversation, falsification, plunder, or another offense?
Check the accused public officer’s position at the time of the alleged offense. Look at the appointment, plantilla item, election position, salary grade, military or police rank, or statutory position.
Read the Information carefully. The key question is not merely “how much was mentioned in the complaint?” but “what amount is actually alleged in the Information filed in court?”
Look for government damage or bribery. R.A. No. 10660 specifically refers to damage to the government or bribery.
Check whether the amount exceeds ₱1 million. If the amount is not more than ₱1 million, the RTC may have exclusive original jurisdiction.
Check whether the transactions are the same or closely related. The law refers to damage or bribery arising from the same or closely related transactions or acts. Prosecutors should not casually combine unrelated transactions just to reach the jurisdictional threshold.
Check the date of commission. If the alleged offense happened before R.A. No. 10660 took effect, older jurisdictional rules may apply.
Check for special laws. Some special laws may contain their own jurisdictional rules. The Supreme Court’s lengthy discussions in drug-related public-officer cases show that special statutory jurisdiction can complicate the Sandiganbayan analysis. (Supreme Court E-Library)

Filing a Complaint: Where Ordinary People Usually Start

Most ordinary complainants do not directly file a Sandiganbayan case. They usually begin with a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman’s Rules of Procedure allow complaints to be verbal or written, but for faster action, a complaint is preferably in writing and under oath. Anonymous complaints may be acted upon only if they contain sufficient leads or particulars. The Rules also cover criminal and administrative complaints involving public officers, including cases under R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379, R.A. No. 6713, and offenses committed by public officers in relation to office.

In practice, a strong complaint package usually includes:

Document	Why It Matters
Verified complaint-affidavit	States the facts under oath
Supporting documents	Contracts, vouchers, purchase orders, checks, inspection reports, photos, messages, minutes, bid records
COA audit reports or notices, if available	Often important in government damage cases
Certified true copies	More useful than screenshots or uncertified photocopies
Witness affidavits	Helps establish personal knowledge
Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping	Commonly required for formal complaints

The Ombudsman Citizen’s Charter lists, for filing a complaint, a verified complaint-affidavit with copies based on the number of respondents plus additional copies, supporting documents, and a verified Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping. It also identifies Ombudsman filing points in Quezon City, Cebu City, Tacloban City, Iloilo City, Davao City, Cagayan de Oro City, and through the Ombudsman website. (Ombudsman Philippines)

Practical Bottlenecks in Sandiganbayan and Ombudsman Cases

Corruption cases often move slowly because they are document-heavy. The common bottlenecks are:

Missing procurement records;
Uncertified photocopies;
Difficulty obtaining COA documents;
Unclear computation of government damage;
Witnesses who only heard rumors and have no personal knowledge;
Poorly drafted affidavits;
Failure to connect the accused’s official function to the questioned act;
Confusion between administrative misconduct and criminal graft;
Complaints filed against the wrong officials simply because they signed a document;
Old transactions where prescription, lost records, or repealed rules become issues.

For R.A. No. 3019, the current prescriptive period is 20 years under R.A. No. 10910, but prescription questions can still be complicated depending on the offense, discovery, interruption, and the applicable statute. (Supreme Court E-Library)

Notes for OFWs, Foreigners, and Overseas Witnesses

Foreigners and overseas Filipinos can be complainants or witnesses in Philippine corruption cases, especially in procurement, immigration, local government, permits, licenses, land development, or government contract disputes.

Practical points:

If you are abroad, your affidavit may need notarization before a Philippine Embassy or Consulate, or proper authentication depending on where it is executed.
Documents for use across borders may require apostille or consular authentication. The DFA Apostille system provides authentication services for Philippine public documents, while foreign documents may need proper attestation before use in the Philippines. (Apostille.gov.ph)
If your evidence is in another language, prepare an English translation and, when necessary, a translator’s certification.
Screenshots, emails, and chat messages should be preserved with metadata when possible. Do not rely only on cropped images.
If you are a contractor or consultant, keep the full paper trail: bid documents, notices of award, contracts, delivery receipts, invoices, bank records, correspondence, and meeting notes.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the jurisdictional amount for Sandiganbayan cases?

For many graft, bribery, and public-officer cases under R.A. No. 10660, the important threshold is more than ₱1,000,000.00 in alleged government damage or bribery. If the Information alleges no damage or bribery, or alleges an amount not exceeding ₱1,000,000.00, the RTC may have exclusive original jurisdiction. (Supreme Court E-Library)

Is exactly ₱1 million enough for Sandiganbayan jurisdiction?

Usually, no. The law gives RTC jurisdiction when the alleged damage or bribery does not exceed ₱1,000,000.00. Exactly ₱1,000,000.00 does not exceed ₱1,000,000.00.

Does every case above ₱1 million go to the Sandiganbayan?

No. The amount is only one factor. The case must also involve a covered offense, a covered public official or proper statutory basis, and a connection to public office when required.

What if the Information does not mention any amount?

Under R.A. No. 10660, if the Information does not allege government damage or bribery, the RTC generally has exclusive original jurisdiction for covered post-2015 cases. The Supreme Court applied this principle in Non v. Office of the Ombudsman. (Supreme Court E-Library)

Does the Ombudsman decide whether the case goes to the Sandiganbayan?

The Ombudsman conducts preliminary investigation and determines probable cause in many public-officer cases. If a case is filed, the proper court still has authority to determine its own jurisdiction. The Supreme Court recognizes the Ombudsman’s broad investigatory role but also reviews grave abuse of discretion in proper cases. (Supreme Court E-Library)

What is the difference between graft and plunder amounts?

The ₱1 million amount is a jurisdictional threshold for many Sandiganbayan cases under R.A. No. 10660. The ₱50 million amount is an element of plunder under R.A. No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. (Supreme Court E-Library)

Can a private person be charged in the Sandiganbayan?

Yes, a private person may be included when charged as a co-conspirator or participant with a covered public officer in a case falling within Sandiganbayan jurisdiction.

If the case is filed in the wrong court, what happens?

The accused may file a motion to quash or otherwise challenge jurisdiction. If the court truly has no jurisdiction, its proceedings may be void. In Non v. Office of the Ombudsman, the Supreme Court annulled RTC proceedings because the case was filed in the wrong judicial region. (Supreme Court E-Library)

Are Sandiganbayan decisions appealed to the Supreme Court?

Sandiganbayan decisions are generally reviewed by the Supreme Court through the proper mode under the Rules of Court. The Sandiganbayan also has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, or orders of RTCs in covered cases, whether the RTC acted in original or appellate jurisdiction.

Key Takeaways

The main Sandiganbayan jurisdictional amount under R.A. No. 10660 is more than ₱1,000,000.00 in alleged government damage or bribery.
If the Information alleges no damage or bribery, or alleges ₱1,000,000.00 or less, the case may belong to the RTC.
The amount alone is not enough; the court also checks the offense, the public officer’s rank or position, connection to office, and timing.
R.A. No. 10660’s ₱1 million rule applies to offenses committed after the law took effect in 2015.
Plunder is different: it requires at least ₱50,000,000.00 in ill-gotten wealth under R.A. No. 7080, as amended.
In real cases, the exact wording of the Information often controls the jurisdiction analysis.
A well-prepared Ombudsman complaint should include a sworn complaint-affidavit, complete supporting documents, and a clear computation of alleged government damage or bribery.