Case Digest (G.R. No. 166510)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Benjamin "Kokoy" T. Romualdez and the Sandiganbayan (First Division), G.R. No. 166510, July 23, 2008, Supreme Court En Banc, Brion, J., writing for the Court.The Office of the Ombudsman filed an Information before the Sandiganbayan charging respondent Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez, former Governor of Leyte, with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Information alleged that while serving as Governor (1976–February 1986), Romualdez, using his influence with then President Ferdinand E. Marcos, had himself appointed/assigned as Ambassador to several countries without abandoning the governorship, and thereby collected dual compensation from the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Provincial Government of Leyte, causing undue injury to the Government in the amount of P5,806,709.50.
Romualdez moved to quash the Information under Section 3(a), Rule 117, on two grounds: (1) the facts alleged did not constitute the offense charged because Section 3(e) applies to acts related to grants of licenses/concessions and dual compensation did not fit that scheme, and (2) the criminal action was barred by prescription (citing the 15‑year prescriptive period under RA 3019 and authorities such as Cojuangco Jr. v. PCGG and Cruz, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan). He also argued that the Revised Penal Code provision on absence from the Philippines did not apply and that, in any event, he actually rendered services for both positions.
The People opposed the motion, contending that Section 2(b) of RA 3019 covers public officers receiving government compensation and that constitutional and public‑interest provisions (e.g., Article XI, Sec. 15 of the 1987 Constitution) and applicable jurisprudence precluded prescription from defeating recovery or accountability. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion to quash in its 22 June 2004 Resolution, reasoning that the Information failed to show that Romualdez did not render services for the two concurrent positions, that receipt of compensation for actual services does not constitute injury to the government, and that at most any impropriety would be administrative. The Sandiganbayan denied the People’s motion for reconsideration in its 23 November 2004 Resolution, reiterating that (a) the appointing act can only be imputed to the appointing authority and (b) the allegation of dual compensation, without more, did not establish undue injury or the requisite manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
The People filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan in quashing the Information. Romualdez moved to dismiss, arguing that the proper remedy was a petition for review under Rule 45 since the Sandiganbayan’s rulings were final and appealable (citing RA 1606 as amended by RA 8249...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 a proper mode of review to assail the Sandiganbayan’s final Resolutions quashing the Information, or must the People have resorted to a Rule 45 appeal?
- Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in quashing the Information against Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez for alleged violat...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)