Case Digest (G.R. No. 164068-69)
Facts:
Rolando P. De La Cuesta v. The Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 164068-69; People v. Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., et al., G.R. Nos. 166305-06; Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 166487-88, November 19, 2013, Supreme Court En Banc, Abad, J., writing for the Court.On February 9, 1995 the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) filed two informations in the Sandiganbayan (Crim. Cases Nos. 22017 and 22018) charging members of the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) Governing Board — including petitioners Rolando P. De La Cuesta and Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. — with violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 for allegedly granting P2,000,000 (1984) and P6,000,000 (1985) in financial assistance to the private Philippine Coconut Producers Federation (COCOFED). The informations alleged the grants were taken from PCA special funds, were not included in the applicable budgets, and conferred unwarranted benefits to a private party.
The Sandiganbayan initially granted the accused leave to seek reconsideration from the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) after the OMB indicated the June 2, 1992 resolution had not been communicated as required by Administrative Order No. 7 and Sec. 27, R.A. 6770. During the ensuing exchanges the OSG sought reconsideration of the OMB’s adverse position and the Sandiganbayan ordered submission and cataloguing of documentary evidence (PCA memoranda recommending the grants, Board resolutions 009‑84 and 128‑85, disbursement vouchers, PNB checks and receipts, and COA disallowance letters) to test the existence of probable cause.
After a reinvestigation the OSP informed the Sandiganbayan (March 17, 1997) it still found no probable cause; however, the Sandiganbayan on October 31, 2001 ruled that probable cause existed. The accused moved for reconsideration. Following developments including a change in the OMB’s position (Special Prosecutor Olaguer and Ombudsman Marcelo) and further submissions, the Sandiganbayan on July 23, 2004 granted the accused’s motions for reconsideration and dismissed the cases for lack of probable cause (finding no prima facie evidence of evident bad faith, manifest partiality or gross inexcusable negligence). The Sandiganbayan denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration on December 15, 2004.
The prosecution (OSP and OSG) filed petitions with the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 166305‑06 and 166487...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan err in not treating the Ombudsman’s finding as binding on the existence of probable cause?
- Was the Sandiganbayan correct to dismiss the informations for lack of probable cause under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 for the PCA grants to COCOFED in 1984 and 1985?
- Could the accused be held for trial for technical malversation under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code using the same informations?
- Should the Court resolve the accuseds claim of denial of their right to speedy trial...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)