G.R. No. 126995 - Marcos vs. Sandiganbayan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 126995)

Indictment Under RA 3019 § 3(g)

Petitioner and Dans were charged with conspiring, while public officers of the LRTA, to enter a lease agreement on behalf of LRTA with PGHFI on terms “manifestly and grossly disadvantageous” to the government.

Facts of the Lease and Sub-lease Transactions

• LRTA leased 7,340 sqm in Pasay City to PGHFI for ₱102,760 monthly over 25 years (Exh. B).
• PGHFI immediately subleased the same lot to TNCC for ₱734,000 monthly over 25 years (Exh. D).

Procedural History in the Sandiganbayan

The Information was raffled to the First Division. Initial voting was split; a five-member Special Division was formed but then dissolved before all members had submitted opinions. The First Division issued its decision on September 24, 1993.

Elements of the Offense Under RA 3019 § 3(g)

To prove the offense, the prosecution needed to establish that petitioner (1) acted as a public officer in entering the contract on behalf of LRTA, and (2) that the contract was grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government.

Issue of Authority and Signing Capacity

Although petitioner was ex officio Chair of the LRTA board, the lease agreement bore her signature solely as Chair of PGHFI. There was no evidence she was present or voted at the LRTA board meeting authorizing the lease, and the public officer who actually signed for the LRTA (Dans) was acquitted.

Assessment of Gross and Manifest Disadvantage

The Sandiganbayan relied on the disparity between the ₱102,760 lease and the ₱734,000 sub-lease as proof of gross disadvantage. The Court found no established standard for prejudice in Exhibit B alone, no market comparators, and recognized an expert appraiser’s testimony that a fair market rental at the time would have been only ₱73,000.

Due Process Irregularities in Deliberations

The Sandiganbayan committed fatal procedural errors by (a) convening informal deliberations outside its principal office, (b) excluding two members of the Special Division from critical discussions, and (c) allowing a non-member to be present; these actions violated the required collegial process.

Violation of the Right to Speedy Dispositio

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 126995)

Parties and Representation

Petitioner: Imelda R. Marcos, former First Lady, Minister of Human Settlement, Governor of Metro-Manila, and ex officio Chair of the LRTA Board of Directors; also Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Philippine General Hospital Foundation, Inc. (PGHFI).
Co-accused: Jose P. Dans, Jr., ex officio Vice-Chairman of the LRTA.
Respondents: The Sandiganbayan (First Division) and the People of the Philippines.
Prosecution evidence included documentary exhibits (Lease Agreement “B” and Sub-lease Agreement “D”) and expert testimony (real estate appraiser Ramon F. Cuervo, Jr.).

Facts of the Case

In 1984, LRTA owned a 7,340-sqm lot in Pasay City.
June 8, 1984: LRTA (through Dans) leased the lot to PGHFI (through Marcos) for ₱102,760 per month for 25 years (Exhibit “B”).
June 27, 1984: PGHFI (through Marcos) sub-leased the same lot to Transnational Construction Corporation (TNCC) for ₱734,000 per month for 25 years (Exhibit “D”).
The prosecution alleged that Marcos and Dans conspired to enter into the lease manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government, in violation of Section 3(g) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).

Legal and Constitutional Provisions

Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3(g): Prohibits a public officer from entering, on behalf of the government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same.
Philippine Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14(2): Presumption of innocence and requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Philippine Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 16: Right to speedy disposition of cases.
Presidential Decree No. 1606 (as amended): Jurisdiction and procedural rules of the Sandiganbayan; requirement of unanimous vote in a three-justice division and creation of a five-justice special division if unanimity fails.

Procedural History

January 1992: Information filed as Criminal Case No. 17450 before the Sandiganbayan (First Division).
September 15, 1993: Failure to reach unanimous vote; A.O. 288-93 created a special five-justice division.
September 21, 1993: Informal lunch meeting of three justices (Garchitorena, Balajadia, Del Rosario) reached unanimity; A.O. 293-93 dissolved the special division without waiting for Justice Amores’s manifestation.
September 24, 1993: First Division decision handed down, convicting Marcos and Dans.
June 29, 1998: Supreme Court Third Division (G.R. No. 126995) affirmed Marcos’s conviction, reversed Dans’s conviction.
February 18, 1998: Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration; case elevated and heard en banc.

Issues Presented

Whether Marcos “entered, on behalf of the Government,” into the lease agreement under Section 3(g) of RA 3019.
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the lease was manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government.
Whether procedural irregularities in constituting and dissolving the Sandiganbayan Special Division deprived Marcos of due process or ousted jurisdiction.
Whether Dans’s acquittal in the same transaction should have benefited Marcos.

Sandiganbayan First Division Finding

Elements of Section 3(g) RA 3019 were met:
- Marcos and Dans acted as public officers in entering the lease.
- The stark disparity between ₱102,760 (Lease) and ₱734,000 (Sub-lease) proved gross and manifest disadvantage.
Convicted both Marcos and Dans.

Supreme Court Third Division Rationale

Public-Officer Element:
- Marcos, though signing Exhibit “B” as PGHFI Chair, was ex officio LRTA Chair; board authority deemed implicit.
Gross Disadvantage Element:
- Comparative rental disparity demonstrated prejudice.
- Expert testimony (Cuervo) affirmed lease rental above fair market value.
Procedural and Due Process:
- Not addressed in detail at this stage.
Result:
- Affirmed conviction of Marcos; reversed conviction of Dans for lack of proof of conspiracy or direct disadvantage.

Motion for Reconsideration (En Banc) and Final Resolution

Petitioner’s Contentions:
- Did not sign the lease as a public officer.
- No objective standard to show Exhibit “B” manifestly disadvantageous; speculative comparison to Exhibit “D.”
- Special Division improperly constituted and dissolved; due process violated.
- Long pendency violated right to speedy disposition.
En Banc Decision (Granting MR):
- Presumption of innocence underscored; any doubt must favor the accused.
- Marcos signed Exhibit “B” solely as PGHFI Chair; no proof she acted for LRTA.
- Exhibit “B” alone did not prove gross disadvantage; disparity with Exhibit “D” speculative without an established rental standard.
- Expert appraisal supported reasonableness of lease price.
- Procedural lapses (informal lunch meeting, disenfranchisement of Justices Amores and Atienza) violated Sandiganbayan rules and due process.
- Remand impractical given six-year delay; speedy disposition warranted acquittal.
- Motion for Reconsideration GRANTED; Marcos ACQUITTED.

Governing Jurisprudential Principles

Presumption of innocence and proof beyond reasonable doubt demand moral certainty.
When facts allow an innocent interpretation, conviction cannot stand.
Procedural regularity in a collegial court is essential to due process.
Right to speedy disposition may compel acquittal when protracted delay is egregious.

Votes and Opinions

Majority (Acquittal): Justices Purisima, Martinez, Quisumbing, Bellosillo (insufficiency of evidence), Puno, Kapunan (separate concurrence), Mendoza (insufficiency of evidence).
Concurring (Separate): Justice Bellosillo; Justice Kapunan.
Remand Dissent: Justice Vitug (would remand for correction of irregularities).
Dissenting to Acquittal: Chief Justice Narvasa (on leave), Justice Romero, Justice Panganiban, Justice Regalado (concurs in dissent), Justice Davide (concurs in dissent).

Parties and Roles

Petitioner: Imelda R. Marcos
• Former First Lady; Minister of Hum