Title
Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan, 5th Division
Case
G.R. No. 152259
Decision Date
Jul 29, 2004
Romualdez challenged Sandiganbayan's denial of motions to dismiss graft charges; SC upheld constitutionality of Anti-Graft Law, rejecting procedural and immunity claims.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 152259)

Applicable Law

Primary constitutional basis: 1987 Philippine Constitution (case decided July 29, 2004).
Statutory provisions: Section 5, Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act); Act No. 3326 on prescription of special offenses.
Procedural rules:

  • Rule 65, Rules of Court (certiorari).
  • Rule 117, Rules of Court (motions to quash/dismiss).
  • Rule 116, Section 9, Rules of Court (bill of particulars).

Key Dates

Alleged misconduct: July 16–29, 1975.
Information filed: July 12, 1989.
First motion to dismiss: December 27, 1996.
Sandiganbayan orders: November 20, 2001 (denial of third motion), March 1, 2002 (denial of reconsideration).
Supreme Court decision: July 29, 2004.

Facts

In July 1989, PCGG filed an information charging Romualdez under Section 5, RA 3019, for “willful and unlawful” intervention in the NASSCO–BASECO contract. BASECO, a private corporation majority-owned by President Marcos, acquired NASSCO’s assets for ₱5,000,000.00.

Procedural History

– December 1996: Petitioner’s first motion to dismiss for lack of valid preliminary investigation.
– January 1997: Sandiganbayan ordered reinvestigation by the Office of the Special Prosecutor.
– January 1998: Supreme Court denied certiorari challenging that order.
– November 1998–February 2000: Two motions to quash denied by SB.
– June 2001: Third “Motion to Dismiss” filed; denied November 2001 and reconsideration denied March 2002.
– Petitioner filed Rule 65 certiorari to annul SB resolutions.

Issues

  1. Whether Section 5, RA 3019 is unconstitutional as vague or overbroad.
  2. Whether the information is too vague to inform the nature and cause of the accusation.
  3. Whether a valid preliminary investigation was conducted.
  4. Whether the criminal action is barred by prescription.
  5. Whether petitioner enjoys immunity under Article VII, Section 17 of the 1973 Constitution.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The petition lacks merit; SB resolutions are affirmed.

Analysis

  1. Repetitive Motions
    – Rule 117 prohibits successive motions to quash or dismiss; grounds not raised initially are waived. Romualdez’s third motion repeated issues previously adjudicated.

  2. Constitutionality of Section 5, RA 3019
    – Presumption of validity applies; challenger bears heavy burden.
    – Doctrines of overbreadth and void-for-vagueness are tools developed for First Amendment (speech) cases and do not authorize facial invalidation of penal statutes. Penal provisions are tested as-applied.
    – Section 5 clearly defines (a) the prohibited class (spouse/relatives within third civil degree of key officials) and (b) proscribed act (“intervene directly or indirectly in any business, transaction, contract or application with the Government”).
    – Ordinary meaning of “intervene” suffices; statutory construction cures any absence of definition.

  3. Sufficiency of the Information
    – Information must set forth essential elements, not evidentiary details.
    – Where allegations are vague, remedy is a bill of particulars (Rule 116, § 9), not quashal. Here, the information plainly describes the transaction and petitioner’s alleged role.

  4. Preliminary Investigation
    – PCGG’s bias was cured when SB suspended trial and afforded reinvestigation by the Ombudsman, consistent with Cojuangco v. PCGG and Raro v. Sandiganbayan. SB pr

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms