G.R. No. 162206 - Jacob vs. Sandiganbayan

From 1993 to 1997, Petron Corporation (Petron), engaged in refining and marketing petroleum products, received Tax Credit Certificates (TCCs) by assignment from 18 private firms registered with the Board of Investments (BOI).
TCCs were issued by the One Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit & Duty Drawback Center (OSS) under the Department of Finance (DOF), pursuant to Administrative Order No. 266 dated February 7, 1992.
Petron used the assigned TCCs to pay its excise tax liabilities, following a process wherein BOI-registered firms signed Deeds of Assignment at delivery, which Petron forwarded to OSS with requests to use TCCs for tax payments.
DOF Undersecretary Antonio P. Belicena approved Petron’s requests, issuing Tax Debit Memoranda (TDM) addressed to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), which accepted TCCs by issuing its own TDM. BIR control numbers were marked on the TCCs indicating their use.

The Office of the Ombudsman’s Fact Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) found irregularities and violations of the Memorandum of Agreement dated August 29, 1989, between BOI and DOF, which implemented Article 21 of Executive Order No. 226 (Omnibus Investments Code of 1987).
After a preliminary investigation, the Ombudsman found probable cause on March 27, 2000, against several public officials and private individuals, including petitioners Monico V. Jacob (President of Petron) and Celso L. Legarda (Vice-President and General Manager for Marketing), charging them with violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
On April 10, 2000, the Ombudsman filed 62 Informations, 18 of which (Criminal Case Nos. 25922-25939) named DOF officials, Petron officers, and BOI-registered firms’ officers as respondents.

Petitioners and co-accused filed a Motion for Reinvestigation on April 14, 2000.
On April 17, 2000, the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division gave the prosecution 60 days to reassess evidence and report. The Ombudsman failed to submit a report within this period.
Despite repeated postponements and motions filed by the prosecution, the reinvestigation remained unresolved for over a year.
Petitioners Jacob and Legarda were arraigned on June 1, 2000, and May 18, 2001, respectively, pleading not guilty.
The Sandiganbayan Fourth Division, led by Justice Narciso S. Nario, on August 20, 2001, verbally ordered dismissal of the cases due to violations of the accused’s right to speedy trial, recorded in minutes but not reduced to a written order.
The prosecution filed a Motion for Reconsideration on August 24, 2001; the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division took cognizance of the motion on August 31, 2001.
On February 4, 2002, the Sandiganbayan Special Fourth Division set aside Justice Nario’s verbal dismissal order. The reasons included the absence of vexatious or oppressive delay, the defense’s failure to formally pursue dismissal, and the public interest in prosecuting the crimes.
On February 26, 2002, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Special Division’s Resolution; other accused filed similar motions.
The Sandiganbayan Fourth Division, on December 12, 2003, issued an Omnibus Resolution denying all motions by the accused.

Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioners’ right to speedy trial by setting aside the verbal dismissal order.
Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion by ruling that petitioners were not placed in double jeopardy despite the verbal dismissal order.
Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in failing to consider the alleged lack of evidence against petitioners at the pre-trial stage.