Case Digest (G.R. No. 152259) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In ALFREDO T. ROMUALDEZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN (G.R. No. 152259, July 29, 2004), the Presidential Commission on Good Government filed on July 12, 1989 an information with the Sandiganbayan alleging that Alfredo T. Romualdez, brother-in-law of President Ferdinand E. Marcos and thus a relative within the third civil degree, “intervened directly or indirectly” in a July 1975 sale by the National Shipyard and Steel Corporation to the Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Company for ₱5,000,000, in violation of Section 5, Republic Act No. 3019. Between 1996 and 2001, petitioner filed three repetitive motions—styled as motions to quash or dismiss—raising defects in the preliminary investigation, alleging bias, challenging vagueness of the information and the statute, asserting immunity under the 1973 Constitution, and claiming prescription. The Sandiganbayan denied the original motion on November 20, 2001, refused reconsideration on March 1, 2002, and ordered arraignment and pre-trial to proceed. Case Digest (G.R. No. 152259) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Initiation of Proceedings
- On July 12, 1989, the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) filed an information before the Sandiganbayan charging Alfredo T. Romualdez—brother-in-law of former President Marcos—with violating Section 5, Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) by intervening in the sale of NASSCO assets to BASECO for ₱5,000,000.
- The Information alleged that petitioner, related by affinity within the third civil degree to the President, “intervene[d] directly or indirectly, in a contract between the National Shipyard and Steel Corporation (NASSCO) … and the Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Company (BASECO).”
- Repetitive Motions and Procedural History
- December 27, 1996 – First Motion to Dismiss and Defer Arraignment: challenged the validity of the preliminary investigation for lack of impartiality.
- January 9, 1997 – Sandiganbayan (First Division) ordered a Motion for Reinvestigation with the Office of the Special Prosecutor; Supreme Court dismissed certiorari petition on January 21, 1998.
- November 9, 1998 – Motion to Quash filed with OSP; on September 22, 1999, SPO recommended dismissal but Ombudsman directed trial on the merits.
- October 8, 1999 – Second Motion to Quash and Defer Arraignment; denied on February 9, 2000 for lack of merit.
- June 19, 2001 – Motion for Leave to File Third Motion to Dismiss; admitted by Sandiganbayan but denied on November 20, 2001; reconsideration denied on March 1, 2002.
- July 29, 2004 – Petitioner filed a certiorari petition under Rule 65 seeking to set aside the November 20, 2001 and March 1, 2002 resolutions.
Issues:
- Constitutionality and Vagueness
- Whether Section 5 of RA 3019 is unconstitutional as vague, overbroad, or violative of due process and the presumption of innocence.
- Whether the Information is unconstitutionally vague for failing to specify the acts of “intervention.”
- Procedural and Substantive Defenses
- Whether there was a valid preliminary investigation.
- Whether the criminal action has prescribed.
- Whether petitioner enjoys immunity under Section 17, Article VII of the 1973 Constitution.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)