G.R. No. 157684 - Department of Health vs. Camposano

On September 7, 1994, the Office of the Ombudsman filed in the Sandiganbayan three amended informations against Binay—one for violation of Art. 220, Revised Penal Code, and two for violation of Sec. 3(e), R.A. 3019—alleging acts committed in 1987 when Binay was Makati municipal mayor.
Binay moved to quash the informations for undue delay (six years from July 27, 1988 preliminary investigation to filing in 1994); the Sandiganbayan denied the motion (March 29, 1995) and the reconsideration (June 6, 1995).
On April 25, 1995, the Sandiganbayan granted a prosecution motion and suspended Binay pendente lite for 90 days; Binay petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari (G.R. Nos. 119781-83) and obtained an April 28, 1995 directive to file a reply. After reply, the Sandiganbayan reiterated both denials and the suspension on June 6, 1995.
R.A. 7975 (redefining SB jurisdiction) took effect May 16, 1995. On June 13, 1995, Binay moved in the Sandiganbayan to refer his cases to the RTC for lack of jurisdiction; this was denied July 4, 1995. Binay then filed certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with temporary restraining orders on July 7, 1995, and later added a prayer to dismiss for due-process delay and lack of probable cause.

April 16, 1994 complaint by Vice-Mayor Victor Cusi charged municipal officials of overpricing a school landscaping project. On June 14, 1995, the Ombudsman recommended an information for Sec. 3(e) and (g), R.A. 3019, but filed it in the RTC of Batangas on August 11, 1995.
A second complaint by Concerned Citizens led to a July 27, 1995 recommendation and, on February 9, 1996, filing of an amended information in the Sandiganbayan (Crim. Case No. 22378).
On June 1, 1996, the accused moved to quash in the Sandiganbayan for lack of jurisdiction, duplicity, and double jeopardy; the court denied and stayed the case pending the Supreme Court’s Binay ruling. The RTC held a referral motion in abeyance.
On October 22, 1996, after prosecution motion, the Sandiganbayan lifted the stay and set arraignment; a reconsideration was denied February 17, 1997. The accused petitioned the Supreme Court on February 27, 1997, and obtained a temporary restraining order on October 1, 1997. The two petitions were consolidated October 6, 1997.

Does the Sandiganbayan have exclusive original jurisdiction over criminal cases involving municipal mayors for violations of R.A. 3019 and Art. 220, RPC, under PD 1606 as amended by R.A. 7975 and R.A. 8249?
Under R.A. 7975 Sec. 7 (and R.A. 8249 Sec. 7), must cases pending in the Sandiganbayan where trial has not begun be referred to the “proper courts,” and if so, does that include the Sandiganbayan itself or only the regular courts?
In Binay’s case, was his right to speedy disposition/due process violated by the Ombudsman’s six-year delay?
In Magsaysay’s case:

Was the Sandiganbayan ousted of jurisdiction by the prior filing of an information in the RTC?
Are the Ombudsman and prosecutors estopped by laches or waiver from pursuing the Sandiganbayan case?
Did filing two separate informations violate the anti-duplicity rule?
Did arraignment in the Sandiganbayan constitute double jeopardy?
Did the state commit forum shopping?