Case Digest (G.R. No. 105965-70)
Facts:
In the case of George Uy vs. Sandiganbayan, Ombudsman and Roger C. Berbano, Sr., the petitioner, George Uy, served as the Deputy Comptroller of the Philippine Navy. On July 2, 1991, six informations were filed against Uy and nineteen co-accused, charging them with violations of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, and estafa through falsification of official documents. The co-accused held various positions, including retired generals and other naval officers involved in the procurement processes of the Philippine Navy.The Sandiganbayan initially directed a comprehensive reinvestigation into the case. Following the reinvestigation, it was determined that several of the original accused would not be charged, and new informations were filed against a smaller group, including Uy. The allegations against Uy involved gross negligence, asserting that he, in his capacity, approved disbursement vouchers related to procurement contracts that overpaid for supplies, specifi
Case Digest (G.R. No. 105965-70)
Facts:
- Overview of the Case
- George Uy, a former Deputy Comptroller of the Philippine Navy, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition.
- The petition sought to annul the Sandiganbayan’s resolution denying his motion to quash six amended informations charging him with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, and to enjoin the respondents from proceeding with the criminal prosecutions against him.
- Petitioner’s Background and Assignment
- At the time of the alleged acts, petitioner was acting in the capacity of Deputy Comptroller and was designated by Captain Luisito F. Fernandez, the Assistant Chief of Naval Staff for Comptrollership, to act on his behalf.
- His responsibilities included signing disbursement vouchers necessary for the procurement of equipment for the Philippine Navy.
- The Criminal Charges and Proceedings
- On July 2, 1991, six informations for estafa through falsification of official documents and one information for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 were filed against petitioner and nineteen co-accused.
- The case underwent a re-investigation following an order by the Sandiganbayan issued on September 20, 1991, resulting in the withdrawal of the estafa charges and the filing of amended informations solely based on the alleged violation of R.A. No. 3019 against selected accused, including petitioner.
- Subsequent orders by the Special Prosecutor refined the list of accused from the original twenty to a smaller group. Eventually, six distinct amended informations were filed against petitioner and two other officers concerning discrepancies in purchase orders and financial computations related to the procurement process.
- Motion to Quash and the Procedural History
- On April 21, 1992, petitioner filed a motion to quash the filed informations.
- His arguments included:
- Lack of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over the offense charged and over himself.
- On June 10, 1992, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying petitioner’s motion to quash, holding that:
- Jurisdiction was proper given that the petitioner, though an officer of the Armed Forces, was subject to the criminal prosecution under R.A. No. 3019.
- The filing officer had the requisite authority and the allegations sufficiently met the requisite elements of the offense, justifying the prosecution in the initiated forms.
- Points of Contention Regarding Jurisdiction and Authority
- The petitioner and the Solicitor General contested the jurisdiction by arguing that:
- Being a regular officer of the Armed Forces, his case should fall under the court‐martial jurisdiction as provided by P.D. 1850 (as amended by P.D. 1952), citing Article 2 of the Articles of War.
- The controlling law at the time of the filing of the informations prescribed that the court-martial, not the Sandiganbayan, had jurisdiction over offenses committed by military personnel.
- They highlighted the significance of P.D. 1850 and later R.A. No. 7055, noting that the latter returned jurisdiction over certain crimes committed by military personnel to the civil courts except for service-connected offenses.
- The respondents, however, maintained that:
- Both the offense charged (violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019) and the position of the petitioner fell within the special jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan on matters of graft and corruption, subject to rank requirements.
- The procedural splitting of the criminal information into separate indictments for distinct purchase order discrepancies was proper.
Issues:
- Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan versus Court-Martial
- Whether at the time the informations were filed, the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over petitioner given his status as a regular officer of the Armed Forces versus being subject to court-martial jurisdiction under P.D. 1850 and its amendments.
- How the subsequent enactment of R.A. No. 7055, which returned jurisdiction over certain crimes to the civil courts, affects the proper forum for the prosecution.
- Authority of the Prosecuting Officer
- Whether the officer who filed the amended informations had the proper authority to do so, particularly in light of petitioner’s assertion that only the prosecutor (and not the Ombudsman) could institute such proceedings.
- Sufficiency of the Alleged Facts to Constitute an Offense
- Whether the allegations in the amended informations, if taken as true, constitute a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended.
- The propriety of splitting the original information into multiple amended informations without constituting two or more distinct offenses.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)