G.R. No. 116259-60 - Socrates vs. Sandiganbayan

Case Digest (G.R. No. 116259-60)
Advanced

Facts:

Parties and nature of the actions
Petitioner Salvador P. Socrates filed two consolidated original actions for certiorari and prohibition assailing orders and a resolution issued by respondent Sandiganbayan, Third Division, in Criminal Cases Nos. 18027 and 18028, both entitled “People of the Philippines vs. Salvador P. Socrates.”
In G.R. Nos. 116259-60, petitioner assailed the legality of:

The order dated February 9, 1994 denying petitioner’s Amended and Consolidated Motion to Quash the Informations;
The order dated May 24, 1994 denying the Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation; and
The order dated July 20, 1994 denying the Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the May 24, 1994 order.

In G.R. Nos. 118896-97, petitioner sought annulment of the Sandiganbayan resolution dated December 23, 1994 ordering his preventive suspension as Provincial Governor of Palawan for ninety (90) days, and to enjoin enforcement of the resolution.

Political background and the filing of complaints before the Tanodbayan
Petitioner was incumbent governor of Palawan.
Petitioner’s electoral history showed he was first elected governor in 1968, reelected in 1971 and 1980, and served until he was replaced after the EDSA Revolution in February 1986.
Private complainant Victoriano Rodriguez replaced petitioner as Officer-In-Charge Governor after the EDSA Revolution.
Both petitioner and Rodriguez ran for governor in the 1988 elections; Rodriguez won.
In the 1992 synchronized national and local elections, petitioner again contested; this time petitioner won.
While Rodriguez was still OIC Governor, the Provincial Government of Palawan, represented by Rodriguez and the Provincial Board Members of Palawan, filed two complaints before the Office of the Tanodbayan, both dated December 5, 1986 and docketed as TBP No. 86-01119.
The first complaint charged petitioner with violation of Section 3(b), Republic Act No. 3019.
The second complaint charged petitioner, together with several other provincial officers, with violation of Section 3(a) and (g), Republic Act No. 3019.

Proceedings before the Tanodbayan/Ombudsman and petitioner’s motions
Instead of filing a counter-affidavit as directed, petitioner filed a Motion to Suspend Preliminary investigation dated September 3, 1987, arguing that after ratification of the 1987 Constitution, the Tanodbayan had been transformed into the Office of the Special Prosecutor and had lost power to conduct preliminary investigation.
A letter dated June 23, 1988 from Nelia Yap-Fernandez, deputized Tanodbayan Prosecutor, requested inhibition because petitioner appeared to be her co-principal sponsor in a wedding ceremony held May 28, 1988.
On January 16, 1989, the Office of the Ombudsman received a letter from Rodriguez inquiring about the status of TBP No. 86-01 119.
In a 4th Indorsement dated February 7, 1989, the Ombudsman referred continuing and terminating the investigation to a newly deputized Tanodbayan Prosecutor.
The newly deputized Prosecutor requested reassignment in a 5th Indorsement dated February 27, 1989, citing his long-time closeness with petitioner and alleging one complainant, Eustaquio Gacott, Jr., had become the Provincial Prosecutor of Palawan and was his present superior.
On April 25, 1989, petitioner was directed by the Ombudsman to comment on a letter-manifestation dated April 4, 1989 filed by Rodriguez requesting amendment of certain portions of the complaint.
Petitioner filed the required comment dated June 2, 1989.

Filing of informations with the Sandiganbayan and motions to quash
Based on a Resolution dated August 27, 1992 which affirmed a Resolution dated February 21, 1992 recommending filing of charges, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed two informations on September 16, 1992 with the Sandiganbayan.
Criminal Case No. 18027: violation of Section 3(h), Republic Act No. 3019.
Criminal Case No. 18028: violation of Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019.
Before arraignment, petitioner initially filed an “Urgent Motion for Quashal of Information and/or Reinvestigation in the Light of Supervening Facts.”
When called for hearing, petitioner’s counsel was required to choose which of the two conflicting motions to take up.
On January 18, 1993, petitioner filed an Amended and Consolidated Motion to Quash the Information.
After opposition and reply, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion in its first assailed Resolution dated February 9, 1994.
On March 15, 1994, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation; the Sandiganbayan denied it in its second assailed Resolution dated May 24, 1994.
Petitioner then filed the certiorari and prohibition petition in G.R. Nos. 116259-60, praying that respondent court be enjoined from taking cognizance and proceeding with arraignment and trial/hearing.

Arraignment, motion to suspend pendente lite, and withdrawal of supplemental petition
No temporary restraining order was issued in G.R. Nos. 116259-60.
Respondent Sandiganbayan proceeded with arraignment on October 5, 1994; petitioner entered a plea of not guilty after refusing to do so.
On October 11, 1994, the prosecution filed a Motion to Suspend Accused Pendente Lite pursuant to Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019.
Petitioner opposed on the ground that the validity of the informations was still pending review before the Supreme Court.
Petitioner also asserted Section 13 was unconstitutional for undue delegation of executive power and as arbitrary and discriminatory.
On October 14, 1994, petitioner filed a Supplemental Petition in G.R. Nos. 116259-60 questioning the veracity of and seeking to restrain respondent court from acting on the motion to suspend.
The hearing was scheduled on October 17, 1994.
Before respondents could file their required comment, petitioner withdrew the supplemental petition to avoid delaying resolution of the main petition.
On January 16, 1995, the Court granted the motion to withdraw and considered G.R. Nos. 116259-60 submitted for resolution.

Amended motion to include co-principals and suspension order
On November 28, 1994, petitioner filed in the Sandiganbayan an amended motion to include as co-principals:

In Criminal Case No. 18028, members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan who authorized the purchase and repair of the vessel; and
In Criminal Case No. 18027, the Board of Directors of ERA Technology and Resources Corporation which entered into a contract with the Province of Pal...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

Issues in G.R. Nos. 116259-60
Whether a six-year delay between preliminary investigation and filing of informations violated petitioner’s constitutional rights to a speedy disposition of cases and due process under the Tatad doctrine, thereby affecting the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction and requiring dismissal.
Whether the informations alleged sufficient ultimate facts to constitute offenses, specifically:

Whether Criminal Case No. 18027 failed because it allegedly did not allege petitioner’s actual intervention and participation as a board member of ERA Technology and Resources Corporation, an alleged element necessary under Section 3(h), Republic Act No. 3019; and
Whether Criminal Case No. 18028 failed because it allegedly did not allege a causal relation between petitioner’s acts and undue injury to the Province of Palawan under Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019.

Whether the differences between complaints before the Tanodbayan and the informations filed before the Sandiganbayan required a new preliminary investigation, such that the informations should be declared void for lack of due process.

Issues in G.R. Nos. 118896-97...(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Supreme Court E-Library

Case Digest (G.R. No. 116259-60)
Concise Detailed

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 116259-60)
Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 116259-60) Concise Detailed

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 116259-60) Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 116259-60)
Concise Detailed

Case Digest (G.R. No. 116259-60)
Advanced