G.R. No. 149495 - People vs. Sandiganbayan

The case arises from a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, filed by the People of the Philippines as petitioner against the order of the First Division of the Sandiganbayan (SBN).
The petition seeks to nullify the Order dated June 28, 2001, which denied the motion to consolidate Criminal Case No. 26566 (indirect bribery) with Criminal Case No. 26558 (plunder).

On April 4, 2001, the Office of the Ombudsman filed three separate cases before the SBN:

Criminal Case No. 26558 for plunder against former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada and others (assigned to the Third Division).
Criminal Case No. 26565 for illegal use of alias, filed against Estrada (assigned to the Fifth Division).
Criminal Case No. 26566 for indirect bribery (assigned to the First Division against herein private respondent).

The petitioner moved to consolidate the cases on the ground that they arose from related transactions and involved common factual issues, with Criminal Case No. 26558 bearing the lowest docket number.

The motion to consolidate Criminal Case No. 26565 with Criminal Case No. 26558 was granted by the Fifth Division.
The motion to consolidate Criminal Case No. 26566 with Criminal Case No. 26558 was denied by the First Division, prompting the present petition.

On November 15, 2001, a Joint Motion for Provisional Dismissal of Criminal Case No. 26566 was filed by petitioner and private respondent, which was denied by the First Division.
On July 10, 2002, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion for Consolidation seeking to allow testimonial evidence (notably the testimony of Luis "Chavit" Singson) from the plunder case to be used in the indirect bribery case.
On August 6, 2002, respondent Policarpio filed a manifestation alleging that petitioner was engaging in forum-shopping.
By the time the petition was pending, the Special Division had already conducted the testimony of key witnesses (Carmencita Itchon, Emma Lim, and Luis Singson) in the plunder case.

Whether the First Division of the SBN grievously abused its discretion in denying the motion to consolidate Criminal Case No. 26566 (indirect bribery) with Criminal Case No. 26558 (plunder).
Whether the denial amounted to a lack or excess of jurisdiction which prejudiced the public interests of an economical and speedy trial.
Whether consolidation would have prevented conflicting factual findings between the two divisions handling the cases.

The respondent argued that there was no grave abuse of discretion by the SBN in denying consolidation.
It was submitted that the petitioner had engaged in forum-shopping by seeking relief in different venues, thereby violating the undertaking included in the Verification/Certification against forum-shopping.