Case Summary (G.R. No. 14595)
Procedural Background and Relief Sought
The Ombudsman filed two informations against Disini in the Sandiganbayan: Criminal Case No. 28001 (corruption of public officials under Article 212 in relation to Article 210, R.P.C.) and Criminal Case No. 28002 (violation of Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019). Disini moved to quash on grounds of prescription and insufficiency of form. He voluntarily submitted to arraignment (to secure permission to travel) and pleaded not guilty. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash (Jan. 17, 2005) and denied reconsideration (Aug. 10, 2005). Disini filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion, lack of jurisdiction by the Sandiganbayan, misapplication of R.A. No. 8249, and that the informations had prescribed and were factually insufficient.
Legal Framework Governing Jurisdiction
The Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction derives from P.D. No. 1606 as amended by R.A. No. 7975 and R.A. No. 8249. Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 vests original and exclusive jurisdiction in the Sandiganbayan over (a) violations of R.A. No. 3019 and certain R.P.C. provisions where one or more accused are public officials occupying specified higher positions; (b) other offenses by such public officials in relation to their office; and (c) civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14‑A (1986) issued to recover ill‑gotten wealth of Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates. Executive Order No. 1 specifically empowered the PCGG to recover ill‑gotten wealth of the Marcoses, their immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates “without distinction as to their private or public status.”
Jurisdictional Analysis and Holding
The Court held that the Sandiganbayan had exclusive original jurisdiction over the prosecutions despite Disini’s private status. The key points of the reasoning are: (1) the criminal informations are closely intertwined with PCGG Civil Case No. 0013 (a reconveyance/reversion/accounting action) that directly concerns recovery of ill‑gotten wealth arising from the same PNPP transactions; (2) the PCGG initially filed the criminal complaints and transmitted records to the Ombudsman pursuant to the Cojuangco line of decisions, establishing the case’s roots in the PCGG’s mandate under E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14‑A; and (3) Subsection 4(c) of R.A. No. 8249 encompasses civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with those Executive Orders, which by their terms reach ill‑gotten wealth involving the Marcoses and their close associates “without distinction as to their private or public status.” The Court rejected Disini’s contention that the qualifying clause in Section 4 (regarding officials of certain salary grades) should be read to limit Subsection 4(c). The legislative language confines the salary‑grade qualifier to Subsections 4(a) and 4(b); reading it into 4(c) would frustrate the PCGG’s explicit mandate and the clear congressional design in R.A. No. 8249. Consequently, private individuals who are alleged to have participated in schemes to acquire ill‑gotten wealth that are connected with PCGG actions fall within the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction, and Disini’s private status did not divest the Sandiganbayan of power to try the cases.
Prescription: Applicable Periods and Time of Commencement
The Court analyzed three prescription questions: (1) the applicable prescriptive period for each charged offense; (2) when prescription begins to run; and (3) when it is interrupted. For Criminal Case No. 28001 (corruption of public officials under Article 212 in relation to Article 210 R.P.C.), the Court treated the applicable prescriptive period as 15 years (Article 90, crimes punishable by afflictive penalties other than death, reclusion perpetua or temporal). For Criminal Case No. 28002 (violation of Section 4(a), R.A. No. 3019), the prescriptive period as originally applied to the alleged time frame (1974–February 1986) is 10 years because the amendment extending prescription to 15 years (Batas Pambansa Blg. 195, March 16, 1982) cannot be retroactively applied to crimes committed before its effectivity (per People v. Pacificador). On commencement, the Court applied the “discovery” principle: for crimes under the Revised Penal Code Article 91 prescriptive computation commences from the day the crime is discovered by the offended party or the authorities; for special laws (R.A. No. 3019) Section 2 of Act No. 3326 provides that prescription begins from the day the violation was committed, and if not known at that time, from discovery and the institution of judicial proceedings. The Court found that, given the context of connivance and concealment during the Marcos regime, discovery of the unlawful nature of the PNPP transactions effectively occurred only after the EDSA Revolution (the Court treated the time of discovery as 1986, when discovery became possible) and through the PCGG’s exhaustive investigation. The Court also held that the filing/transmission of the PCGG complaints to the Office of the Ombudsman (April 8, 1991) effectively interrupted prescription. Because only five years had elapsed from the Court’s chosen discovery date (1986) to the April 1991 transmittal/filing, prescription had not yet run and the informations were timely.
Interruption and Tolling of Prescription
Citing Article 91, the Court reaffirmed that prescription is interrupted by the filing of a complaint or information (or equivalent preliminary investigation filing). The Court relied on prior decisions recognizing that an investigative proceeding instituted for prosecution purposes (including an executive preliminary investigation) suffices to toll prescription. In this case, the PCGG’s filing/transmission to the Ombudsman for preliminary investigation was treated as an effective interruption of prescription, thus preserving the viability of the later informations filed by the Ombudsman.
Sufficiency in Form and Substance of the Informations
The Court applied the Rule 110, Section 6 standard: an information is sufficient if it names the accused, designates the offense, states the acts or omissions constituting the offense, names the offended party, gives approximate date and place, and includes co‑accused where applicable. The Court found both informations adequate on their face. For Criminal Case No. 28001 (Article 212 in relation to Article 210 R.P.C.), the information alleged that Disini offered, promised and gave shares and subcontracts to President Marcos as consideration for Burns & Roe and Wes
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 14595)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- Petitioner: Herminio T. Disini; Respondents: The Hon. Sandiganbayan, First Division, and the People of the Philippines; consolidated G.R. Nos. 169823-24 and 174764-65 (decision rendered September 11, 2013; reported at 717 Phil. 638).
- Nature of action: Petition for certiorari assailing Sandiganbayan resolutions in Criminal Case Nos. 28001 and 28002 (People v. Herminio T. Disini).
- Reliefs challenged: (a) Resolution dated January 17, 2005 denying Disini’s motion to quash the informations; (b) Resolution dated August 10, 2005 denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to quash (the Court’s dispositive paragraph later refers to affirmation of resolutions of January 17, 2005 and August 16, 2005).
- Allegation by petitioner: Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the criminal informations and in denying the motion to quash.
Antecedent and Origin of the Prosecutions
- Two informations filed by the Office of the Ombudsman on June 30, 2004 in the Sandiganbayan:
- Criminal Case No. 28001: charge of "corruption of public officials" under Article 212 in relation to Article 210, Revised Penal Code.
- Criminal Case No. 28002: charge of violation of Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
- These criminal actions were transmitted to the Ombudsman by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) pursuant to a letter dated April 8, 1991, which referenced the similarity of the case to Cojuangco, Jr. v. PCGG and requested appropriate action by the Ombudsman because the PCGG could not be impartial in preliminary investigations where it had already found a prima facie case.
- The criminal informations are intertwined with a civil action filed by the PCGG: Civil Case No. 0013 (Republic v. Herminio T. Disini, et al.) filed to recover alleged ill-gotten wealth and asserting unlawful concert with Marcos and others in amassing ill-gotten wealth, including allegations of large commissions from Westinghouse and the use of companies as conduits for improper payments.
Accusatory Allegations — Criminal Case No. 28001 (Corruption of Public Officials)
- Timeframe alleged: during the period from 1974 to February 1986, in Manila.
- Principal allegations:
- Disini, conspiring and confederating with then-President Ferdinand E. Marcos, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously offered, promised and gave gifts and presents to Marcos.
- Gifts alleged included ownership of: two billion five hundred million (2.5 billion) shares of Vulcan Industrial and Mining Corporation and four billion (4 billion) shares of The Energy Corporation, each with a book value of P100.00 per share, and subcontracts to Engineering and Construction Company of Asia (owned/controlled by Marcos).
- Consideration for these gifts: Disini allegedly sought and obtained contracts for Burns & Roe and Westinghouse to perform engineering/architectural design and construction of the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant Project (PNPP) of the National Power Corporation at Morong, Bataan.
- Allegation that Marcos, taking undue advantage of his position and in relation to his office, awarded or caused the award of the Burns & Roe and Westinghouse contracts — constituting the crime of corruption of public officials (Article 212 R.P.C.).
Accusatory Allegations — Criminal Case No. 28002 (Violation of Section 4(a), R.A. No. 3019)
- Timeframe alleged: 1974 to February 1986, in Manila.
- Principal allegations:
- Disini, as close personal friend and golfing partner of Marcos, husband of Paciencia Escolin-Disini (first cousin of Imelda Marcos), and family physician to the Marcos family, took advantage of his close personal relations and free access.
- He requested and received from Burns & Roe the total amount of US$1,000,000 (more or less) and from Westinghouse the total amount of US$17,000,000 (more or less).
- These amounts and subsequent subcontracts (for Power Contractors, Inc., owned by Disini, and Engineering and Construction Company of Asia (ECCO-Asia), owned/controlled by Marcos) constituted kickbacks, commissions, gifts or material/pecuniary advantages for securing contractual awards for Burns & Roe and Westinghouse, through Marcos’s direct intervention — thus violating Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019.
Procedural History Before Sandiganbayan
- August 2, 2004: Disini filed a motion to quash, asserting extinction by prescription and nonconformity of the informations to the prescribed form.
- Prosecution opposed the motion to quash.
- September 16, 2004: Disini voluntarily submitted to arraignment to secure permission to travel abroad; he pleaded not guilty to both informations.
- January 17, 2005: Sandiganbayan (First Division) promulgated resolution denying Disini’s motion to quash.
- Disini moved for reconsideration; Sandiganbayan denied reconsideration (order dated August 10, 2005 per early recital; the Court later references affirmation of resolutions on January 17, 2005 and August 16, 2005).
- Disini filed the present petition for certiorari alleging lack/excess of jurisdiction and errors on prescription and sufficiency grounds.
Issues Raised by Petitioner
- Primary contentions (as phrased in petition):
- Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the offenses charged.
- Sandiganbayan erred in ruling that Section 4, paragraphs (a) and (b) of R.A. No. 8249 did not apply because the informations were filed pursuant to E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A.
- Sandiganbayan assumed jurisdiction without meeting the requisite that the accused must be a public officer under Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249.
- Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse by ignoring petitioner’s constitutional and statutory right to prescription.
- Errors in determining applicable prescriptive period, commencement of prescription, and interruption of prescription.
- Prejudgment by the court in assuming presence of absent elements to uphold sufficiency of informations.
- Refusal to quash informations despite failure to comply with prescribed form; denial of right to be informed of nature and cause of accusation.
Holding — Disposition of the Court
- The petition for certiorari is dismissed for lack of merit.
- The Supreme Court affirms the Sandiganbayan (First Division) resolutions denying Disini’s motion to quash and motion for reconsideration (resolutions of January 17, 2005 and referred-to August 2005 resolution are affirmed).
- Petitioner is directed to pay costs of suit.
- Concurrence: Sereno, C.J., Villarama, Jr., Perez,* and Reyes, JJ. concurred. Footnote: Perez sits in lieu of Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, who took part in the Sandiganbayan per raffle of October 3, 2011.
Holding — Jurisdictional Rationale (Sandiganbayan’s Exclusive Original Jurisdiction)
- Central holding: Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over the criminal actions involving Disini notwithstanding his status as a private individual because the prosecutions are intimately related to recovery of ill-gotten wealth of Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, subordinates and close associates.
- Statutory and historical bases:
- Sandiganbayan established by P.D. No. 1606; jurisdiction amended by R.A. No. 7975 and R.A. No. 8249.
- Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 vests Sandiganbayan with original and exclusive jurisdiction over:
- (a) violations of R.A. No. 3019 and related provisions where one or more accused occupy specified public positions (Grade 27 or higher, specified offices).
- (b) other offenses committed by th