G.R. No. 123698 - Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

The Office of the Ombudsman charged Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The Information alleged that during the period from 1976 to February 1986 (with some acts possibly occurring before or after this period), while Romualdez was serving as the Provincial Governor of Leyte, he concurrently received an appointment and assignment as Ambassador to various countries including the People’s Republic of China, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the United States of America.
It was asserted that by holding dual positions, he collected double compensation—one from the Department of Foreign Affairs and another from the Provincial Government of Leyte—totaling amounts in both US currency and Philippine pesos, thereby allegedly causing undue injury to the Government.

The Information emphasized that the act of appointing himself as Ambassador (or obtaining such assignment) was contrary to law since the positions of Ambassador and Governor are incompatible.
The charge further alleged that the receipt of dual compensation, amounting to significant sums, constituted an unjust enrichment that injured the Government.
The elements of the offense demanded a showing of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence in the act leading to the alleged injury.

The facts alleged did not constitute the offense as the statute was interpreted by him to apply only to public officers involved in granting licenses, permits, or concessions.
The criminal liability had already been extinguished by prescription since the filing of the case occurred more than fifteen years after the alleged commission of the offense.

He argued that receiving dual compensation was justified by the fact that he rendered actual services in both positions and that there was no undue injury to the Government.
Additionally, Romualdez contended that proceedings initiated by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) in 1989, which were later quashed as void ab initio, could not toll the 15‑year prescriptive period.

The Sandiganbayan, through its first Resolution, granted the motion to quash based on the insufficiency of the Information in alleging actual damage or undue injury to the Government.
In its ruling, the Sandiganbayan noted that compensation received for rendering actual services did not fall within the ambit of unjust enrichment as required by Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
The People of the Philippines opposed the motion and later moved to reconsider the Sandiganbayan’s Resolution, especially regarding the issue of prescription.
Subsequent rulings involved a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari filed by the People, a Motion for Reconsideration by the respondent, and a second motion for reconsideration addressing both the sufficiency of the Information and the prescription issue.
The case history also revealed split opinions regarding the proper application of the prescription rule and controversies over the Court’s jurisdiction to rule on a second motion for reconsideration.

Whether the alleged acts of concurrently serving as Provincial Governor and Ambassador, and consequently collecting dual compensation, satisfy the elements of the offense under Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
Whether the receipt of dual compensation—given that actual services were rendered—can be construed as causing undue injury and unjust enrichment to the Government.
Whether the criminal action against the respondent has been extinguished by prescription given the lapse of time from the alleged commission of the offense to the initiation of the proper proceedings by the Ombudsman.
Whether the procedural and jurisdictional rules, including the permissible use of a Rule 65 petition for certiorari and the prohibition on a second motion for reconsideration, were properly observed in quashing or sustaining the Information.