Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 188165
Decision Date
Dec 11, 2013
High-ranking official accused of bribery and extortion; Sandiganbayan dismissed charges due to restrictive interpretation of "transaction" and inordinate delay.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 188165)

Petitioner

People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Ombudsman’s Special Prosecutor

Respondents

Sandiganbayan First, Second and Third Divisions; Hernando B. Perez; Rosario S. Perez; Ernest L. Escaler; Ramon C. Arceo Jr.

Key Dates

• November 12 & 25, 2002 – Privilege speeches by Villarama and Jimenez naming Perez
• December 23, 2002 – Jimenez files complaint-affidavit with Ombudsman (OMB-C-C-02-0857L)
• November 14, 2005 – Fact-finding completed by FIO of Ombudsman
• November 6, 2006 – Special Panel issues joint resolution finding probable cause
• April 18, 2008 – Informations filed in Sandiganbayan (Criminal Cases SB-08-CRM-0265 & 0266)
• November 13 & 20, 2008 – Sandiganbayan quashes graft information (Sec. 3(b), R.A. 3019) and dismisses robbery information (RPC Arts. 293–294)
• April 21 & June 19, 2009 – Sandiganbayan divisions deny reconsideration motions
• December 11, 2013 – Supreme Court resolves certiorari petitions

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 16 – right to speedy disposition of cases
• Republic Act No. 3019, Sec. 3(b) – corrupt practices (requiring “contract or transaction” with monetary consideration)
• Revised Penal Code Arts. 293–294 – robbery (extortion) elements
• Rule 65, Rules of Court – writ of certiorari

Interpretation of “Contract or Transaction” Under R.A. 3019 Sec. 3(b)

The Sandiganbayan relied on Soriano, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan (131 SCRA 184) to define “transaction” strictly as one involving monetary consideration analogous to credit dealings. It held that Perez’s alleged promise to desist from pressuring Jimenez to execute affidavits did not constitute a “transaction” with monetary consideration, thus failing the fourth element of Sec. 3(b).

Quashal of the Graft Information for Lack of Essential Element

In SB-08-CRM-0265, the First Division granted motions to quash the Sec. 3(b) information, reasoning that:

  1. No “contract or transaction” analogous to a credit arrangement existed.
  2. Jimenez’s pending application for a Witness Protection Program, also argued as a “transaction,” lacked monetary consideration and was in negotiation only.
  3. Charging two distinct felonies (graft and robbery) on the same act would violate the prohibition against splitting a single offense.

Consistency with Jurisprudence on “Transaction” Definition

The Supreme Court affirmed that subsequent rulings in Mejia, Peligrino, Chang and Merencillo v. People did not overturn Soriano’s narrow definition. Laws defining crimes and penalties must be strictly construed against the State. The graft information failed to allege a transaction involving monetary consideration in which Perez had authority to intervene.

Dismissal of the Robbery (Extortion) Case for Inordinate Delay

In SB-08-CRM-0266, the Second Division quashed the robbery information under RPC Arts. 293–294, finding that the Ombudsman’s fact-finding and preliminary investigations spanned over five years (2002–2008). This unjustified delay violated the respondents’ constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases. The Court noted:
• February 2001 alleged extortion; Jimenez waited 18 mont




...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.

About Privacy Terms