Case Digest (G.R. No. 239203-09)
Facts:
Petitioner Salacnib F. Baterina filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 seeking to annul the Sandiganbayan, Second Division's Resolutions dated March 13, 2018 and April 23, 2018 which denied his Request for Inhibition and motion for reconsideration in connection with informations arising from alleged misuse of PDAF funds (P35,000,000) and an Ombudsman joint resolution finding probable cause dated May 4, 2016.Petitioner alleged bias because a December 18, 2017 Sandiganbayan resolution inadvertently included his name in the dispositive portion (later corrected by a nunc pro tunc entry dated January 15, 2018), because the Sandiganbayan proceeded with his arraignment while his inhibition request was pending, and because respondents allegedly failed to observe A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC; the Sandiganbayan denied his Request and reconsideration, prompting this petition.
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan act with bias by including petitioner’s name in the dispositive p
Case Digest (G.R. No. 239203-09)
Facts:
- Background of the prosecution
- Salacnib F. Baterina served as Representative of the First District of Ilocos Sur from 1997 to 2007 and was implicated in the PDAF cases concerning alleged misuse of PDAF/pork barrel funds.
- On November 29, 2013, the National Bureau of Investigation filed a complaint (NBI-Baligod Complaint, OMB-C-C-13-0409) against petitioner concerning alleged misuse of his 2007 PDAF allotment amounting to P35,000,000 covering SARO No. 07-00710.
- On May 29, 2015, the Field Investigation Office of the Office of the Ombudsman filed a complaint (FIO-Complaint, OMB-C-C-15-0150) covering the same SARO and additional PDAF covered by SARO Nos. D-07-03368 and ROCS 07-03009.
- The P35,000,000 was allegedly released to Technology Resource and Livelihood Center (TRC) through the three SAROs, and TRC allegedly transferred the amount to Philippine Development Foundation, Inc. and Kaagapay Magpakailanman Foundation, Inc. for livelihood projects.
- On May 4, 2016, the OMB issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause to indict petitioner and others for three counts of violation of Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3(e), and three counts of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code; a separate information for direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code was also filed.
- Pre-trial motions and initial Sandiganbayan actions
- Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on June 24, 2016, which the OMB denied in a Joint Order dated November 7, 2016.
- On March 17, 2017, seven Informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan and raffled to the Second Division.
- On March 28, 2017, accused Mario L. Relampagos and others filed a Joint Omnibus Motion raising multiple pretrial remedies; on May 25, 2017, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion to quash the Informations.
- On September 22, 2017, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying petitioner’s Omnibus Motion for lack of merit; petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated December 12, 2017.
- The inadvertent inclusion and correction
- On December 18, 2017, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution on the Joint Omnibus Motion of accused Relampagos and others which inadvertently included petitioner’s name in the dispositive portion.
- On January 15, 2018, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution nunc pro tunc correcting the dispositive portion to show the Joint Omnibus Motion of Relampagos and the other accused only was denied.
- Request for inhibition, arraignment, and Sandiganbayan resolutions
- On February 22, 2018, petitioner filed a Request for Inhibition alleging bias, partiality, and prejudice by the members of the Sandiganbayan, Second Division, grounded on the December 18, 2017 inadvertent inclusion.
- During arraignment on February 23, 2018, petitioner refused to enter a plea; the Sandiganbayan ordered a plea of not guilty entered for petitioner.
- On March 13, 2018, the Sandiganbayan issued the first assailed Resolution denying petitioner’s Request for lack...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Central legal question presented
- Whether the members of the Sandiganbayan, Second Division acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying Salacnib F. Baterina’s Request for Inhibition.
- Subsidiary issues raised by petitioner
- Whether the inclusion of petitioner’s name in the dispositive portion of the December 18, 2017 Resolution constituted proof of bias and predetermination against petitioner.
- Whether respondents acted with bias when they ordered petitioner to enter his plea during arraignment despite the pendency of the Request for Inhibition.
- Whether respondents acted with bias by rejecting the Request for Inhibition on technical grounds and without observing A.M. No. ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)