Case Digest (G.R. No. 169823-24)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 169823-24)
Facts:
Herminio T. Disini v. The Hon. Sandiganbayan, First Division, and The People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 169823-24, 174764-65, September 11, 2013, the Supreme Court First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Herminio T. Disini (petitioner) was prosecuted by the Office of the Ombudsman in two Sandiganbayan criminal cases: Criminal Case No. 28001 (charged under Article 212 in relation to Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code for corruption of public officials) and Criminal Case No. 28002 (charged under Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The informations were dated June 30, 2004 and alleged that, during 1974–February 1986, Disini conspired with then President Ferdinand E. Marcos to secure contracts for Burns & Roe and Westinghouse in exchange for large shareholdings, subcontract awards and multi-million dollar payments (kickbacks/commissions) connected with the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant Project (PNPP) at Morong, Bataan.
Earlier, the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) had filed a civil complaint (Civil Case No. 0013, Republic v. Herminio T. Disini, et al.) alleging acquisition of ill-gotten wealth and had transmitted the criminal complaint records to the Ombudsman by letter of April 8, 1991, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Cojuangco, Jr. v. PCGG and seeking Ombudsman action because the PCGG was said to be disqualified by prior findings. Following the Ombudsman’s investigation, informations were filed in the Sandiganbayan on June 30, 2004. Disini filed a motion to quash on August 2, 2004 (raising prescription and form defects), voluntarily submitted to arraignment and pleaded not guilty on September 16, 2004, and thereafter sought reconsideration.
The Sandiganbayan First Division denied the motion to quash on January 17, 2005 and denied reconsideration on August 10, 2005 (both resolutions penned by Associate Justice Peralta). Petitioner then filed a special civil action for certiorari in the Supreme Court alleging, inter alia, lack of Sandiganbayan jurisdiction, misapplication of R.A. No. 8249 (Section 4), errors on prescription (period, commencement, interruption), and insufficiency of the informations. The Supreme Court resolved the case on certiorari.
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan have exclusive original jurisdiction over the offenses charged?
- Had the offenses charged already prescribed?
- Were the informations sufficient in form and substance to charge the offenses?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)