Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Romualdez
Case
G.R. No. 166510
Decision Date
Jul 23, 2008
Romualdez, as Leyte Governor and Ambassador, faced graft charges for dual compensation. Sandiganbayan quashed the case; Supreme Court reversed, ordering trial due to sufficient allegations of undue injury under RA 3019.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-13272)

Case Background

The Office of the Ombudsman charged Benjamin Romualdez with violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, which pertains to the prevention of graft and corrupt practices. The information alleged that during his tenure as the Provincial Governor of Leyte, Romualdez, using his influence with then-President Ferdinand Marcos, was unlawfully appointed as Ambassador to several countries while still holding his gubernatorial position. This dual appointment allegedly allowed him to collect dual compensation from two government sources.

Motion to Quash

Romualdez filed a motion to quash the information on the basis that the facts did not constitute an offense and that any criminal liability had lapsed due to the prescription period. He contended that the statute under which he was charged applied only to particular public officers and that receiving dual compensation did not constitute a violation as he had rendered services in both roles. Additionally, he argued that the time prescribed for legal action had expired since the offense occurred between 1976 and 1986, and the case was only referenced to the Ombudsman in May 2001.

Arguments from the Prosecution

In opposition, the People of the Philippines contended that Romualdez's motion misinterpreted Section 3(e) of RA 3019, which clearly applies to all public officers receiving a salary from the government, and that the right to recover public property from public officials is not barred by prescription due to constitutional provisions that supersede claims of technicality.

Sandiganbayan’s Resolutions

The Sandiganbayan granted Romualdez's motion to quash, asserting that there was insufficient evidence in the Information to show that the actions of Romualdez had caused damage to the government. The court ruled that merely receiving dual compensation does not in itself imply wrongful conduct if actual services were rendered. It further clarified that inefficiency alone does not constitute criminal liability.

Reconsideration and Subsequent Ruling

The People sought reconsideration of the Sandiganbayan's initial ruling, arguing that it contained reversible errors. However, the Sandiganbayan upheld its position in a second resolution, reaffirming that the allegations in the information did not constitute a violation of RA 3019, focusing on the legality of Romualdez's dual appointments and the absence of demonstrable harm to the government.

Jurisdictional Issues

The Supreme Court addressed the procedural concerns regarding the application of Rule 65 for certiorari, which the People used instead of the appeal process under Rule 45. The Court pointed out that while a Rule 65 petition is typically inappropriate when a legal remedy exists through appeal, it can still be warranted when grave abuse of discretion occurs or when significant public interest is at stake.

Ruling on Grave Abuse of Discretion

The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan had acted with grave abuse of discretion by qu

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.