Case Summary (G.R. No. 230519)
Factual Background
The Office of the Ombudsman charged Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez, the former Provincial Governor of Leyte, with violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. The charges stemmed from allegations that between 1976 and February 1986, he unlawfully collected dual compensation by holding both the position of Governor and various ambassadorships, which resulted in undue injury to the government.
Motion to Quash
Romualdez moved to quash the information on the grounds that the facts alleged did not constitute an offense and that his liability had expired due to the prescription of action. He contended that the law applied only to public officials involved in granting licenses or permits, asserting that dual compensation was irrelevant to that provision and arguing that he rendered services associated with both positions, negating any resulting damage.
Arguments of the People
The prosecution opposed the quashal, asserting that Romualdez’s appointment as ambassador constituted a corrupt practice under R.A. 3019 and that the right of the State to recover assets unlawfully acquired by public officials is not subject to prescription, per Section 15, Article XI of the Constitution.
Sandiganbayan's Rulings
The Sandiganbayan granted the motion to quash, reasoning that Romualdez had rendered actual services to justify dual compensation, thus failing to demonstrate undue injury to the government. It further stated that evident bad faith required for a violation of Section 3(e) was not established as acts demonstrating inefficiency are not necessarily criminally liable.
Reconsideration and Subsequent Proceedings
The People filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing there were errors in the Sandiganbayan’s ruling. The Sandiganbayan maintained its position, reaffirming that the information did not allege actions constituting a violation of the law. The court dismissed the prosecution’s arguments regarding prescription, marking a significant aspect in the legal proceedings.
Petition for Certiorari
The People filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which the Supreme Court eventually granted, finding grave abuse of discretion in the Sandiganbayan's quashing of the information. The Court noted that the Sandiganbayan improperly relied on evidentiary considerations, which are not appropriate for evaluating a motion to quash.
Conclusion on Prescription
Upon further proceedings, the Supreme Court found merit in Romualdez's argument of prescription, citing that the offe
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 230519)
Case Overview
- This case involves the petition for certiorari filed by the People of the Philippines against Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez regarding a criminal information charging him with violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
- The primary issue at hand is whether the Sandiganbayan correctly quashed the information against Romualdez, claiming that the facts alleged did not constitute an offense, and whether the criminal action had already prescribed.
Antecedent Facts
- The Office of the Ombudsman filed charges against Romualdez, who served as the Provincial Governor of Leyte from 1976 to February 1986.
- The charge was based on allegations that he unlawfully collected dual compensation by being appointed as an ambassador while concurrently holding his position as governor, thus causing undue injury to the government.
- Romualdez filed a motion to quash the information on two grounds: (1) the facts alleged did not constitute an offense, and (2) the criminal liability had prescribed.
Arguments by Romualdez
- Romualdez contended that:
- The provision cited in the law applies only to public officers involved in the grant of licenses and permits, which does not pertain to his case.
- He rendered actual services for both positions, asserting that there was no undue injury to the government.
- The 15-year prescription period under Section 11 of R.A. 3019 had lapsed, as the preliminary investigation began in May 2001, well beyond the timeframe of the alleged offenses.
People's Opposition
- The prosecution argued against the motion, highlighting that:
- Section 2 (b) of R.A. 3019 encompasses all public officers, including elective officials like Romualdez.
- The right of the state to recover unlawfully acquired properties is not barred by prescript