Case Summary (G.R. No. 202243)
Relevant Cases and Charges
Two separate criminal cases were filed before the Sandiganbayan regarding the NBN Project. The first case, docketed as SB-10-CRM-0098, was against Benjamin Abalos for violation of Section 3(h) of RA 3019. The second, docketed as SB-10-CRM-0099, was against Neri, charging him with having a financial or pecuniary interest in the government transaction with ZTE, violating Section 3(h), RA 3019, and Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. Several other related cases were also filed but assigned to the Fourth Division.
Facts and Proceedings Before the Sandiganbayan
Neri was accused of having financial interest in the NBN Project, meeting and socializing with ZTE officials and other key personalities connected to the project, such as COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos and Jose De Venecia III. The prosecution presented six witnesses in Neri’s case but requested continuances citing unavailability and verification issues of subsequent witnesses. Meanwhile, Neri testified as a witness against Abalos in the latter’s case.
On January 3, 2012, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) moved for the consolidation of Neri’s case with those of Abalos and others, invoking Section 22, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court regarding consolidation of related trials to promote expeditious and less costly resolution. The Sandiganbayan Fifth Division granted this motion by resolution dated February 3, 2012, subject to approval by the Fourth Division, where Abalos’ case was pending.
Opposition to Consolidation by Neri
Neri opposed consolidation on grounds that the cases involve different issues and facts, he would be prejudiced as he did not belong to Abalos’ group negotiating with ZTE, and consolidation would delay his right to a speedy trial since his case was already at an advanced stage with prosecution witnesses nearly done. Neri further contended that consolidation might subject him to trial for crimes not charged in his information and that the motion was a delaying tactic by the prosecution.
The Fourth Division’s Refusal to Accept Consolidation
The Fourth Division, on October 19, 2012, declined to accept the consolidation, citing concerns over impartiality. Since the Fourth Division had already heard Neri testify as a witness against Abalos and formed opinions on his credibility, it found that trying Neri's case there might compromise the fairness owed to an accused.
Legal Analysis on the Issue of Consolidation
The Supreme Court explained that consolidation is a procedural tool designed to expedite court processes by avoiding multiplicity of suits, preventing delays, and minimizing costs. The Rules of Court allow consolidation of trials involving common questions of law or fact, albeit with discretion vested in the courts.
In criminal cases, Section 22, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court expressly authorizes consolidation of trials for offenses founded on the same facts or forming part of a series of offenses of similar character, but allows discretion and does not mandate consolidation. The Sandiganbayan’s internal rules similarly permit consolidation of cases involving common questions of law or fact.
Consolidation may take various forms: staying all but one action (quasi consolidation), merging actions into a single cause (actual consolidation), or ordering separate cases tried jointly but retaining their separate identities (consolidation for trial). The resolution under review appears to order consolidation for trial (joint trial), not merger of cases into a single action.
Requisites for Consolidation of Trial
Jurisprudence requires that joint trial is proper when the cases arise from the same act or transaction, involve the same or similar issues, depend on substantially the same evidence, do not prejudice any party, and the court has jurisdiction over all cases. Joint trial should avoid undue advantage or harm to any party’s rights.
Examination of the Charges and Witness Lists
The Court highlighted the substantial differences between the charges and incriminating acts against Neri and Abalos despite the common background of the NBN Project. Neri was accused primarily of financial interests and meetings, while Abalos’ charges included bribery and arranging meetings. The lists of prosecution witnesses in the two cases differed significantly, with Abalos’ case having approximately fifty witnesses compared to about twenty-six for Neri. Although some witnesses appeared in both cases, the majority did not overlap. This difference suggested that consolidation would subject Neri to numerous irrelevant testimonies, prolonging the trial unjustifiably.
Effect on Speedy Trial and Prejudice to Accused
The Court found that consolidation would likely delay the resolution of Neri’s case, compromising his constitutional right to a speedy trial under Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The difference in the number and nature of witnesses meant that consolidation would force Neri to endure protracted litigation and exposure to unrelated evidence, causing oppressive delay and prejudice.
Constitutional and Jurisprudential Considerations
The Court emphasized that consolidation cannot be ordered if it undermines the swift dispensation of justice, or causes undue delay and prejudice to the accused. The right to a speedy trial takes precedence ov
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 202243)
Case Background and Parties Involved
- Petitioner Romulo L. Neri served as Director General of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) under former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
- The case arose from alleged irregularities in the Philippine-ZTE National Broadband Network (NBN) Project.
- The Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) filed two criminal Informations on May 28, 2010:
- Against Benjamin Abalos for violation of Section 3(h), Republic Act No. 3019 (SB-10-CRM-0098), raffled to Sandiganbayan Fourth Division.
- Against Romulo L. Neri for violation of Section 3(h), RA 3019, in relation to Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution (SB-10-CRM-0099), raffled to the Fifth Division.
- Additional related Informations were subsequently filed against Macapagal-Arroyo and others (cases SB-11-CRM-0467 to SB-11-CRM-0469).
- The prosecution alleged conflicts of interest and pecuniary interests related to the NBN Project involving the ZTE corporation.
Facts and Procedural History
- The Information against Neri charged that from September 2006 to April 2007, as NEDA Director General, he was financially interested in the ZTE business transaction concerning the NBN Project, despite constitutional prohibitions.
- Specific acts included meetings, social functions, and sending a representative to negotiate with Project proponents.
- During trial, six prosecution witnesses testified for Neri’s case.
- The prosecution filed for consolidation of Neri’s case with Abalos’ and other related cases, arguing commonality to promote efficiency and reduce expense, especially concerning ZTE executives as witnesses.
- Neri opposed consolidation, arguing:
- Different issues and facts between his and other cases.
- Consolidation was oppressive and violated his rights.
- He did not belong to the Abalos group negotiating the NBN Project.
- Trial stages of both cases were advanced and consolidation would delay his trial.
- The prosecution’s motion was a ploy to delay the case due to their inability to present additional witnesses.
- The Sandiganbayan Fifth Division granted consolidation by Resolution dated February 3, 2012, subject to the conformity of the Fourth Division, citing precedent and reasons to avoid multiplicity, expenses, and delay.
- The Fifth Division denied Neri’s motion for reconsideration in an April 26, 2012 Resolution.
- The Fourth Division, however, refused to accept the consolidated case, reasoning that they had already formed opinions on Neri’s credibility as a witness in the Abalos case and to maintain impartiality, they declined consolidation on October 19, 2012.
Issues Presented for Review
- Petitioner Neri raised the following challenges against the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division's consolidation order:
- [A] The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure do not allow consolidation of criminal cases, only consolidation of trials in appropriate instances.
- [B] Consolidation would lead to being tried for a crime not charged in his original Information, violating his constitutional right to be informed of the accusation's nature.
- [C] Consolidation would prejudice his rights as he does not belong to the Abalos group negotiating with ZTE.
- [D] Consolidation would delay trial since cases are in advanced stages with many witnesses still to testify in Abalos’ case but no more witnesses in his own.
- [E] The consolidation was merely a ploy by the prosecution to delay Neri’s case as no additional witnesses have appeared.
- [F] It would be absurd to consolidate because Neri was the principal witness against Abalos in the latter’s case, creating a contradiction in roles.
Legal Principles on Consolidation of Criminal Cases and Trials
- Consolidation serves as a procedural mechanism aiding courts to expe