Case Digest (G.R. No. 156394)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division and Sergio F. Emprese, Sr., G.R. No. 156394, January 21, 2005, Supreme Court Second Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court.The Office of the Ombudsman (petitioner) filed the instant certiorari under Rule 65 attacking the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division’s 02 August 2002 Resolution granting respondent Sergio F. Emprese, Sr.’s Motion to Quash the Information in Criminal Case No. 27136, and the Sandiganbayan’s 11 September 2002 denial of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. The Information, filed on 28 January 2002, charged then‑Municipal Mayor Emprese with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 for allegedly failing to reinstate nine municipal employees and to pay back wages despite a final Court of Appeals decision ordering reinstatement.
Chronology of antecedent events: On 22 June 1998 nine complainants were appointed by the municipal mayor of San Andres, Quezon; their appointments were revoked by respondent Emprese upon assuming office on 01 July 1998. The complainants filed illegal termination complaints with the Civil Service Commission, Regional Office No. IV (CSCRO‑IV), which on 05 March 1999 ordered reinstatement with back wages. Respondent appealed to the CSC Central, which on 29 February 2000 reversed CSCRO‑IV. The complainants sought relief before the Court of Appeals, which on 31 July 2001 reversed the CSC Central and reinstated the CSCRO‑IV order; that decision became final and executory because respondent failed to timely appeal.
While an urgent motion for execution of the Court of Appeals’ 31 July 2001 decision was pending, the Office of the Ombudsman filed the criminal Information on 28 January 2002. The CSC granted execution only on 20 February 2002; respondent’s motion for reconsideration before the CSC Central was denied on 23 April 2002. Respondent moved to quash the Information before the Sandiganbayan on 09 May 2002, arguing the acts charged did not constitute a Section 3(e) offense and the Information was deficient under Rule 117, Sec. 3(d). In June 2002 respondent informed the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan that complainants had been reinstated and were receiving partial back wages; a Joint Affidavit of Desistance dated 11 June 2002 was submitted, and the Ombudsman dismissed the parallel administrative complaint for lack of interest to prosecute.
On 02 August 2002 the Sandiganbayan granted the Motion to Quash, reasoning that at the time the Information was filed there was no writ of execution ordering reinstatement and that it would “strain reason” to charge respondent criminally for failure to enforce an order whose execution the complainants themselves sought from the CSC; the Sandiganbayan cancelled bail and lifted its hold departure order. The Sandiganbayan denied reconsideration on 11 September 2002. Petitioner received that denial on 13 November 2002 but filed a Rule 65 petition only on 10 January ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy to assail the Sandiganbayan’s final resolution quashing the Information?
- Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion or act without jurisdiction in quashing the Information for alleged violation of Section...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)