Case Digest (G.R. No. 169823-24) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Disini v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 169823-24 & 174764-65), decided September 11, 2013, petitioner Herminio T. Disini was charged by the Office of the Ombudsman via two informations dated June 30, 2004 in Sandiganbayan Criminal Case Nos. 28001 and 28002. In No. 28001 he was accused under Article 212 in relation to Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code of conspiring with President Ferdinand E. Marcos to give him over six billion shares of stock in Vulcan Industrial and Mining Corporation and The Energy Corporation and lucrative subcontracts in exchange for awarding the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant Project contracts to Burns & Roe and Westinghouse. In No. 28002 he was charged under Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 3019 for using his close personal ties to the Marcoses to solicit and receive US$1,000,000 from Burns & Roe and US$17,000,000 from Westinghouse as kickbacks, and to secure subcontracts for his own and Marcos-controlled companies. Disini moved to quash on
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 169823-24) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Herminio T. Disini, a private individual and close associate of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, was charged by the Office of the Ombudsman in two Sandiganbayan cases (Criminal Case Nos. 28001 and 28002).
- The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) had earlier filed a civil suit (Civil Case No. 0013) against Disini for recovery of ill-gotten wealth relating to the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant Project (PNPP) at Morong, Bataan.
- Criminal Informations and Procedural History
- June 30, 2004 – Two informations were filed:
- Criminal Case No. 28001 alleging corruption of public officials (Art. 212 RPC in relation to Art. 210 RPC) by offering stocks and subcontracts to Marcos for awarding PNPP contracts to Burns & Roe and Westinghouse.
- Criminal Case No. 28002 alleging violation of Sec. 4(a), RA 3019 by requesting and receiving US$1 million and US$17 million kickbacks from Burns & Roe and Westinghouse, exploiting Disini’s close relation with Marcos.
- August 2, 2004 – Disini moved to quash the informations on grounds of prescription and non-conformity to form.
- September 16, 2004 – Disini voluntarily submitted for arraignment, pleaded not guilty, and secured leave to travel abroad.
- January 17, 2005 – The Sandiganbayan (First Division) denied the motion to quash.
- August 10, 2005 – The Sandiganbayan denied reconsideration.
- Disini filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction.
Issues:
- Whether the Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over the offenses charged.
- Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in ruling that Secs. 4(a) and (b) of RA 8249 do not apply because the informations were filed pursuant to E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A.
- Whether jurisdiction may be assumed despite Disini being a private individual and not a public officer or accessory.
- Whether Disini’s right to have the crimes declared prescribed was ignored or wrongly determined by the Sandiganbayan.
- Whether the prescriptive period and its commencement and interruption were properly computed.
- Whether the informations failed to allege the essential elements of the offenses and thus were insufficient in form.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)