G.R. No. 147026-27 - Javier vs. Sandiganbayan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 147026-27)

Pertinent Dates and Appointments

Appointed to NBDB Governing Board on February 26, 1996 (one-year term), held over the following year, and reappointed on September 14, 1998 (one-year term). Travel authority to attend Madrid International Book Fair issued September 29, 1997 for travel scheduled October 8–12, 1997. Cash advance in the amount of P139,199.00 was disbursed; the trip was canceled and petitioner failed to return or liquidate the advance despite audit advice and a Summary of Disallowances.

Factual Background of the Alleged Offense

Petitioner received a government cash advance (LBP Check No. 10188) for an official trip that did not materialize. Resident Auditor Rosario T. Martin advised petitioner on February 16, 1998 to return the cash advance; a Summary of Disallowances issued July 6, 1998 stated a balance for settlement (P220,349.00), and no repayment followed. Executive Director Dr. Nellie R. Apolonio filed complaints with the Ombudsman on September 23, 1999, alleging malversation/misuse of public funds and failure to file a Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The Ombudsman found probable cause to charge petitioner under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and for malversation under Article 217 of the RPC (the R.A. 6713 charge was dismissed).

Criminal Informations and Docketing

Two Informations were filed in the Sandiganbayan: Criminal Case No. 25867 (Information dated February 18, 2000) charging violation of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019 (anti-graft) for failure to return/liquidate a P139,199.00 cash advance; and Criminal Case No. 25898 (Information dated February 29, 2000) charging malversation under Article 217, RPC, for conversion/misappropriation of the same P139,199.00. Case No. 25867 was raffled to the First Division; No. 25898 was raffled to the Third Division and later consolidated with No. 25867 by the Third Division’s October 5, 2000 Resolution.

Pretrial Developments and Reliefs Sought by Petitioner

Petitioner pleaded not guilty in Criminal Case No. 25867 and delivered the subject funds to the First Division, which were deposited in a special trust account. She filed motions to quash both informations: in No. 25867, petitioned that Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction because the Information did not allege she was a Grade 27 or higher official or a co-principal/accomplice to such; she further contended she was not a public officer but a private-sector representative of the NBDB. In No. 25898 she moved to quash on grounds of double jeopardy and litis pendens. The First Division denied the motion to quash in No. 25867 (Order of November 14, 2000); the Third Division admitted an amended information in No. 25898 and ordered consolidation, and later denied the motion to quash and motion for reconsideration (Resolution of January 17, 2001).

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion by denying petitioner’s motions to quash the Informations (i.e., whether the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction because petitioner was not a public officer or did not occupy a position within the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdictional classification). 2) Whether petitioner’s right against double jeopardy was violated by the prosecution of two separate informations based on the same underlying transaction.

Legal Standard on Motions to Quash and Availability of Certiorari

A motion to quash challenges the sufficiency of an information on its face. The general rule is that denial of a motion to quash is not ordinarily remedied by certiorari; the accused must proceed to trial while preserving special defenses. An exception exists where the trial court acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, in which case certiorari may issue because forcing an accused to undergo trial would be unfair. The Supreme Court emphasized that interlocutory relief is restricted and certiorari is available only under the exceptional circumstances outlined.

Court’s Analysis: Whether Petitioner Is a Public Officer

The Court examined R.A. No. 8047’s creation and functions of the NBDB Governing Board and concluded that the Board’s powers and duties (formulation and implementation of national book policy; promulgation of rules; budgetary approvals; contracts; ownership and disposition of property; importation privileges for book materials; etc.) are public functions. A public office is defined as a right, authority and duty created by law by which an individual is invested with a portion of sovereign functions to be exercised for the public benefit. Though petitioner was appointed as a private-sector representative, the statutory appointment invested her with sovereign functions in furtherance of government policy. Reliance was also placed on the definition of public officer under R.A. No. 3019 and Article 203 of the Revised Penal Code: appointment to public office suffices to make the appointee a public officer regardless of salary or whether compensation is nominal. Accordingly, the Court held petitioner to be a public officer when performing NBDB duties, including receiving government funds for an official trip.

Court’s Analysis: Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction over Petitioner

Sandiganbayan jurisdiction under Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 (as amended) encompasses violations of R.A. No. 3019 and certain provisions of the RPC where one or more accused occupy positions classified as Grade 27 or higher. The Personnel/DBM equivalence information indicated that NBDB Governing Board members, though not salaried or formally assigned salary grades, may be equated for rank equivalence to Board Member II, SG-28. On that basis, and given the amende

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 147026-27)

Procedural Posture

Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed by Carolina R. Javier seeking nullification of:
- Order dated November 14, 2000 (Crim. Case No. 25867) denying her Motion to Quash Information;
- Resolution dated January 17, 2001 (Crim. Case No. 25898) denying her Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Quash Information;
- Order dated February 12, 2001 declaring a motion for reconsideration in Crim. Case No. 25898 superfluous.
Two criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan:
- Criminal Case No. 25867 (filed February 18, 2000) — violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
- Criminal Case No. 25898 (filed February 29, 2000; amended information June 28, 2000) — malversation of public funds under Article 217, RPC; later consolidated with Crim. Case No. 25867 by Third Division Resolution dated October 5, 2000.
Petitioner raised motions to quash in both cases; motions denied by the Sandiganbayan First and Third Divisions. Petitioner pleaded not guilty in Crim. Case No. 25867; arraignment in Crim. Case No. 25898 was pending due to motion to quash.
Supreme Court disposition: Petition dismissed; Sandiganbayan orders and resolutions affirmed; costs against petitioner.

Factual Background

R.A. No. 8047 (Book Publishing Industry Development Act) enacted June 7, 1995 to promote development of the book publishing industry and create the National Book Development Board (NBDB) under the Office of the President.
NBDB Governing Board composed of eleven members: five from government and six private-sector nominees (publishers, printers, writers, related activities, students, private education).
Petitioner Carolina R. Javier:
- Appointed to the Governing Board as private-sector representative for one-year term on February 26, 1996; served in hold-over capacity thereafter.
- Reappointed September 14, 1998 for another one-year term.
- President of the Book Suppliers Association of the Philippines (BSAP) at time of appointment.
- Functions included attending book fairs to establish international linkages.
Travel authority and cash advance:
- Travel authority issued September 29, 1997 to attend Madrid International Book Fair, Spain, October 8–12, 1997.
- Itinerary and LBP Check No. 10188 issued; petitioner received P139,199.00 as traveling expenses.
- Petitioner did not attend the fair (trip canceled).
Demands and administrative actions:
- Resident Auditor Rosario T. Martin advised petitioner on February 16, 1998 to return/refund cash advance due to cancellation.
- Petitioner failed to return funds.
- Summary of Disallowances issued July 6, 1998 showing balance for settlement of P220,349.00.
- No action taken by petitioner to settle balance.
Complaints and investigations:
- Dr. Nellie R. Apolonio, Executive Director of NBDB, filed complaint with the Ombudsman on September 23, 1999 for malversation and alleged RA 6713 violation for failure to file Statement of Assets and Liabilities.
- Ombudsman found probable cause for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (indictment recommended) and dismissed RA 6713 charge for insufficiency of evidence.
- Commission on Audit (COA) separately charged petitioner with malversation; Ombudsman found probable cause and recommended filing of corresponding information.

Informations, Charges and Pleas

Crim. Case No. 25867 (Information dated February 18, 2000) — charged violation of Sec. 3(e), R.A. No. 3019:
- Allegation: As member of NBDB Governing Board, while performing official functions and acting with evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, petitioner willfully and unlawfully failed to return/liquidate cash advances for official travel abroad that did not materialize amounting to P139,199.00 despite due demand, causing damage/undue injury to the Government, contrary to law.
- Petitioner pleaded not guilty at arraignment in Crim. Case No. 25867.
Crim. Case No. 25898 (Information dated February 29, 2000; Amended Information June 28, 2000 admitted July 6, 2000) — charged malversation under Article 217, RPC:
- Allegation: From October 8, 1997 to February 16, 1999, petitioner, a high-ranking officer and NBDB Governing Board member (accountable for public funds), willfully, unlawfully and feloniously took, malversed, misappropriated, embezzled and converted to her own use P139,199.00 (LBP Check No. 10188) in connection with a trip to Spain that did not materialize, to the damage and prejudice of the government.
Consolidation:
- Third Division ordered consolidation of Crim. Case No. 25898 with Crim. Case No. 25867 by Resolution dated October 5, 2000.
- Petitioner attempted motion to quash Crim. Case No. 25898 (claiming double jeopardy) — denied in open court; motion for reconsideration denied by Resolution dated January 17, 2001.

Petitioner’s Principal Contentions

Lack of jurisdiction / not a public officer:
- Petitioner contends she is not a public officer but a private-sector representative of the NBDB.
- Her role, she asserts, is limited to obtaining priority status for the book publishing industry and she performs no public functions, administrative or political power.
- She emphasizes absence of salary compensation and classification as basis for exclusion from Sandiganbayan jurisdiction.
Double jeopardy:
- Petitioner argues that being charged under two separate informations for the same subject matter violates her right against double jeopardy.
- Invoked right against double jeopardy as ground to quash the Crim. Case No. 25898 information.

Sandiganbayan Orders and Reasoning (First Division; Third Division)

First Division Order (November 14, 2000) — denied Motion to Quash in Crim. Case No. 25867:
- Reasoning summarized:
  - Compensation/salary is not sole qualification for government service or being a public official.
  - Members from the private sector who participate in statutory government agencies perform public functions when acting as board members and when receiving or handling government funds.
  - Monies were advanced to petitioner in her capacity as Director of NBDB for official travel; therefore she acted as a public official and can be charged in Sandiganbayan.
  - Even if considered a private individual, possession of public funds could render her covered by Revised Penal Code provisions.
Third Division Resolution (October 5, 2000; January 17, 2001) — consolidated cases and denied Motion to Quash Crim. Case No. 25898; denial of motion for reconsideration:
- Held that Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction under Sec. 4(g) of P.D. 1606 as amended (Sandiganbayan jurisdiction) because:
  - The offense was office-related — funds for travel were given because of her directorship.
  - Article 222, RPC, may hold private individuals liable when they have charge of public funds in any capacity.
- Denied litis pendencia/litispendencia claim because the two informations charge offen
...continue reading