Case Digest (G.R. No. 147026-27)
Facts:
Carolina R. Javier, G.R. Nos. 147026-27, September 11, 2009, the Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Carolina R. Javier was a presidential appointee to the Governing Board of the National Book Development Board (NBDB) under Republic Act No. 8047; she served as a private-sector representative (one-year term, reappointed, and later on hold-over). As part of her board functions and as then-President of the Book Suppliers Association of the Philippines, she was issued a travel authority to attend the Madrid International Book Fair (October 8–12, 1997) and received a P139,199.00 cash advance for travel, but she did not undertake the trip.
Following cancellation, the NBDB’s Resident Auditor demanded return/liquidation of the cash advance; a Summary of Disallowances was later issued showing a balance for settlement. The NBDB Executive Director filed a complaint with the Ombudsman (September 23, 1999) charging petitioner with malversation and failure to file a Statement of Assets and Liabilities; the Ombudsman found probable cause for violation of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti‑Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Sec. 3(e), but dismissed the R.A. 6713 charge.
An Information for violation of R.A. No. 3019, Sec. 3(e) (Criminal Case No. 25867) was filed in the Sandiganbayan First Division (docketed February 18, 2000). Separately, the Commission on Audit pursued an administrative/criminal charge for malversation (Article 217, Revised Penal Code), and an Information for malversation was filed and docketed as Criminal Case No. 25898 before the Sandiganbayan Third Division (docketed February 29, 2000). The Third Division later admitted an amended information (June 28, 2000) and ordered consolidation of the two cases (October 5, 2000).
Petitioner moved to quash both informations. In Criminal Case No. 25867 the First Division denied the motion to quash (Order, November 14, 2000), reasoning that although petitioner was appointed from the private sector and received little or no salary, she was exercising public functions as an NBDB board member and had custody/receipt of public funds, bringing her within public-office doctrines. The First Division accepted consolidation and set arraignment; petitioner pleaded not guilty in Case No. 25867 and deposited the disputed funds in a special trust account.
In Criminal Case No. 25898 the Third Division denied petitioner’s motion to quash and motion for reconsideration (Resolution, January 17, 2001), holding that the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction pursuant to P.D. No. 1606, Sec. 4(g) (jurisdiction over certain officials) and that the charge was office‑related; it also invoked Revised Penal Code, Art. 222 (extension of provisions to ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner’s motions to quash the informations?
- Was petitioner a public officer for purposes of Sandiganbayan jurisdiction?
- Did petitioner’s prosecution under two separate informations violate her right...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)