Title
Guevarra vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 138792-804
Decision Date
Mar 31, 2005
PUP administrators accused of graft under RA 3019; Sandiganbayan reinstated 13 cases despite late motion, upheld by SC for substantial justice and state's due process.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 138792-804)

Key Dates and Procedural History (Concise)

Allegations dated about 1989 and thereafter. Ombudsman and COA proceedings through the 1990s produced recommendations and a COA decision (June 4, 1996) that exonerated petitioner Olonan on certain findings. The Sandiganbayan (Second Division) conducted docketing and multiple Orders, including a January 26, 1998 Order dismissing thirteen criminal cases as to petitioners Guevarra, Cesar and Salvador, and an April 6, 1999 Resolution reinstating those cases after a belated motion for reconsideration by the Special Prosecutor. The Supreme Court decision under review was rendered March 31, 2005 and applies the 1987 Philippine Constitution as the governing constitutional framework.

Applicable Law and Procedural Rules

Controlling statutory and procedural authorities invoked include: Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Presidential Decree No. 1606 Section 7, Rule VIII of the Revised Rules of Procedure of the Sandiganbayan, Section 2 Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on reglementary periods, and the constitutional due process guarantees under the 1987 Constitution. The decision applies doctrines on finality of orders, jurisdictional limits, grave abuse of discretion, and the legal consequences of void judgments or orders.

Factual Allegations Contained in the Information

The Information alleged a single criminal intent and conspiracy among the public officers to cause undue injury to the government by acts including: non-turnover of unused construction materials; overpayment of terminal leave benefits (P1,107,056.45); unauthorized payments to DPWH personnel and honoraria to PUP officials (P1.74M and P556,367.00 respectively); overpayment on property due to registration delay (P133,200.00); payments based on blind certifications (P10,646,230.28) contrary to P.D. 1177 Sec. 46; excessive purchase of curtains (P27,462.00); improper payments for repairs and renovations (P167,627.13); and overpayment via incorrect indirect cost rates on change orders (P1.99M). The aggregate of these items formed the basis of the charges under RA 3019.

COA Audit, Ombudsman Recommendations and Initial Prosecution Steps

A COA special audit produced SAO-SOG Report No. 93-19; petitioner Olonan sought reconsideration and the COA eventually issued a decision (June 4, 1996) granting her motion for reconsideration and exonerating her on certain findings. Within the Ombudsman, various prosecution officers reviewed recommendations: an initial recommendation for dismissal by a Graft Investigation Officer was disapproved by the Ombudsman, Special Prosecution Officer Cicero Jurado Jr. recommended maintaining 17 charges (July 28, 1995), and subsequent prosecutors prepared multiple Informations. The Special Prosecutor later filed motions to withdraw and to pursue separate Informations, leading to multiple docketed criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan.

Sandiganbayan Proceedings and the Report of Retired Justice Marigomen

The Ombudsman referred certain recommendations to retired Court of Appeals Associate Justice Alfredo Marigomen for review; his May 24, 1996 Report recommended dropping some charges against petitioner Olonan and retaining her in specific cases (notably Criminal Case Nos. 23083, 23088 and 23098), while recommending dismissal of an entire case (23095). The Special Prosecutor appended Marigomen’s Report to his filings, which later became a focal document in the graft court’s deliberations concerning multiple parallel criminal cases.

January 26, 1998 Sandiganbayan Order Dismissing Thirteen Cases

On January 26, 1998, the Sandiganbayan issued an Order dismissing Criminal Case Nos. 23082, 23084, 23085, 23086, 23087, 23089, 23090, 23091, 23092, 23093, 23094, 23096 and 23097 as to the petitioners, and held other related cases in abeyance pending further review. The Order was purportedly based on the Report of Justice Marigomen, as cited by the Special Prosecutor in his Manifestation and Motion. The Order also stayed arraignments and other pending motions until completion of further prosecutorial review.

Special Prosecutor’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Late) and Sandiganbayan’s April 6, 1999 Resolution

The Special Prosecutor filed a motion for partial reconsideration on February 20, 1998—three days beyond the 15-day reglementary period—contending that Marigomen’s Report recommended dismissal only as to petitioner Olonan and that the January 26, 1998 Order erroneously dismissed the thirteen cases as to Guevarra, Cesar and Salvador. On April 6, 1999 the Sandiganbayan granted the belated motion in the interest of substantial justice, set aside its January 26, 1998 Order insofar as it dismissed those thirteen cases as to the petitioners, and ordered their reinstatement.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The petition for certiorari raised two principal issues: (1) whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in reinstating the thirteen criminal cases on the basis of a motion for reconsideration filed beyond the fifteen-day reglementary period; and (2) whether the graft court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion on the basis solely of the grounds cited by the prosecution.

Petitioners’ Arguments on Finality and Reglementary Periods

Petitioners argued that under PD No. 1606 Sec. 7 and Rule VIII of the Sandiganbayan Rules, and under Rule 45 Sec. 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the prosecution had only 15 days from notice of the final order to move for reconsideration or appeal. The failure to act within that period rendered the Sandiganbayan’s January 26, 1998 Order final and executory and thus beyond the court’s power to revisit. Petitioners invoked the policy of strict observance of reglementary periods and finality, relying on precedent (e.g., Icao v. Apalisok) and arguing penal rules should be strictly construed against the State.

Government’s Response and Equity Argument

The People contended that reglementary periods are subject to exceptional circumstances, equity, and the interest of substantial justice. The People stressed that the graft court had erred in dismissing the thirteen cases on a mistaken understanding of Marigomen’s Report, that the Special Prosecutor had objected at the hearing when the verbal dismissal occurred, and that rectification of the graft court’s void order was warranted to protect due process of the State.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Void Orders, Jurisdiction and Due Process

The Court recognized the general rule that orders of the Sandiganbayan become final after lapse of the 15-day period, but emphasized the exception that an order is subject to nullification when the tribunal acted in excess or lack of jurisdiction or committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that a void judgment or order is a nullity with no legal effect and may be disregarded or rectified without formal vacation. Applying those p

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms