Case Summary (G.R. No. 169823-24)
Petitioner
Herminio T. Disini
Respondents
Sandiganbayan, First Division
People of the Philippines
Key Dates
• June 30, 2004 – Filing of two informations in the Sandiganbayan (Crim. Cases Nos. 28001 and 28002)
• August 2, 2004 – Disini’s motion to quash informations
• January 17, 2005 – Denial of motion to quash
• August 10, 2005 – Denial of motion for reconsideration
• September 11, 2013 – Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 7975 and 8249 (Sandiganbayan jurisdiction)
• Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A (PCGG mandate)
• Revised Penal Code Articles 210 (direct bribery), 212 (corruption of public officials), 90–91 (prescription)
• Republic Act No. 3019 Section 4(a) (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Section 11 (prescription)
• Batas Pambansa Blg. 195 (amendment to RA 3019), Act No. 3326 Section 2 (prescription for special laws)
• Rules of Court Rule 110 Section 6 (sufficiency of informations), Rule 131 Section 3(m)
Issues
- Whether the Sandiganbayan had exclusive original jurisdiction over a private individual charged with crimes related to the recovery of Marcos ill-gotten wealth.
- Whether the charged offenses had prescribed.
- Whether the informations satisfied the formal and substantive requirements.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is denied. The January 17 and August 10, 2005 resolutions of the Sandiganbayan are affirmed. Petitioner is ordered to pay costs.
Reasoning
Jurisdiction under RA 8249 and EO 1–14
• Section 4(c) of RA 8249 vests the Sandiganbayan with exclusive original jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases “filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A,” which empower the PCGG to recover ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses, their immediate family, subordinates, and close associates.
• Disini’s prosecution originated in PCGG complaints as part of the same transaction alleged in PCGG’s civil suit (Civil Case No. 0013). After Cojuangco, Jr. v. PCGG required PCGG to refer criminal complaints to the Ombudsman, the latter took over and filed the informations in the Sandiganbayan.
• The qualifying clause of Sections 4(a) and 4(b) (limiting jurisdiction to officials of Grade 27 or higher) does not apply to subsection 4(c) cases. Hence, even as a private individual, Disini is properly before the Sandiganbayan.Non-prescription of Offenses
• Corruption of public officials (Art. 212 R.P.C., penalty and prescription under Art. 90) prescribes in 15 years. Violation of RA 3019 sec. 4(a) prescribes in 15 years under RA 3019 sec. 11, but only 10 years apply to acts before March 16, 1982 (People v. Pacificador).
• Prescription for RPC crimes begins upon discovery (Art. 91 R.P.C.); for special laws, it begins from commission or, if unknown at the time, from discovery and institution of proceedings (Act No. 3326 § 2).
• The illicit circumstances surrounding the nuclear plant contracts could only be discovered after the 1986 EDSA Revolution and PCGG’s 1991 investigation. The criminal complaints filed in April 1991 in the Ombudsman interrupted prescription.Sufficiency of the Informations
• Under Rule 110 § 6, an information must name the accused, designate the offense, state the acts constituting it, name the offended party, and give the approximat
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 169823-24)
Procedural History
- Petitioner Herminio T. Disini filed a special civil action for certiorari in the Supreme Court, assailing two resolutions of the Sandiganbayan (First Division) in Criminal Case Nos. 28001 and 28002.
- The first resolution (January 17, 2005) denied Disini’s motion to quash the informations; the second resolution (August 10, 2005) denied his motion for reconsideration.
- Disini’s motion to quash, filed on August 2, 2004, argued that the informations were barred by prescription and defective in form.
- The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash and the subsequent motion for reconsideration, prompting Disini’s petition for certiorari.
Facts of the Case
- On June 30, 2004, the Office of the Ombudsman filed two informations against Disini in Sandiganbayan:
- Criminal Case No. 28001: Corruption of public officials under Article 212 in relation to Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code.
- Criminal Case No. 28002: Violation of Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
- In CC 28001, Disini is alleged to have conspired with President Ferdinand E. Marcos to offer and give shares and subcontracts as gifts so that Burns & Roe and Westinghouse would be awarded contracts for the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant Project (PNPPP).
- In CC 28002, Disini, exploiting his close personal ties to Marcos, is alleged to have received USD 1,000,000 from Burns & Roe and USD 17,000,000 from Westinghouse as kickbacks to secure PNPPP contracts and related subcontracts.
- Disini voluntarily submitted to arraignment on September 16, 2004, pleaded not guilty, and continued to press his motion to quash.
Antecedents
- The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) had earlier filed Civil Case No. 0013 (Republic v. Disini, et al.) alleging ill-gotten wealth accumulation through commissions, embezzlement, and misuse of public funds in relation to PNPPP contracts.
- On April 8, 1991, the PCGG transmitted the records of CC 28001 and CC 28002 to the Ombudsman for preliminary investigation, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Cojuangco, Jr. v. PCGG that the PCGG could not impartially investigate cases it had already sequestered.
- The Ombudsman’s initial resolutions were reversed in PCGG v. Desierto, which directed the Ombudsman to file the informations that became subject of Disini’s motion to quash.
Issues Presented
- Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offenses charged against Disini, a private individual.
- Whether Section 4(a) and (b) of R.A. 8249 applies or is ousted by filing under E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14‐A.
- Whether the