G.R. No. 109266 - Santiago vs. Garchitorena

Case Summary (G.R. No. 109266)

Origin of the Criminal Case and Prior Supreme Court Proceedings

On May 1, 1991, Criminal Case No. 16698 was filed in the Sandiganbayan charging petitioner with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti‑Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), alleging she approved legalization applications for aliens not qualified under Executive Order No. 324. Petitioner previously sought injunctive relief in G.R. Nos. 99289‑99290 (Santiago v. Vasquez, 205 SCRA 162 [1992]) to enjoin Sandiganbayan proceedings on grounds of harassment while she was a presidential candidate; that petition was dismissed January 13, 1992.

Motion for Inhibition and Arraignment Scheduling

Motion for Inhibition, Arraignment Scheduling, and Procedural Motions

Petitioner filed a motion for inhibition of Presiding Justice Garchitorena on October 16, 1992; the motion was set for hearing November 13, 1992 at 8:00 A.M. The Sandiganbayan set arraignment for Criminal Case No. 16698 on November 13, 1992 at 8:00 A.M. Petitioner moved on November 6, 1992 to defer arraignment citing the pending inhibition motion and intention to file a bill of particulars; the Sandiganbayan denied that motion on November 9, 1992. Petitioner filed a motion for bill of particulars on November 10, 1992, seeking names of the allegedly favored aliens.

Judicial Direction to Reset and Prosecution’s Representation

Supreme Court Direction and Prosecution’s Representation on Number of Informations

On November 12, 1992, in G.R. No. 107598, the Supreme Court directed the Sandiganbayan to reset arraignment and dispose of the inhibition and bill‑of‑particulars motions. At the November 13, 1992 hearing the prosecution expressly stated it would file only one amended information.

Filing of 32 Amended Informations and Sandiganbayan Resolutions

Filing of Thirty‑Two Amended Informations and Sandiganbayan Actions

Despite the prosecution’s representation, on December 8, 1992 the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed 32 Amended Informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 18371 to 18402). On March 3, 1993 Presiding Justice Garchitorena denied the motion for his disqualification (resolution of March 11, 1993 as noted in the record). On March 14, 1993 the Sandiganbayan promulgated a resolution admitting the 32 Amended Informations and ordered petitioner to post bail within ten days; arraignment on these informations was set for April 12, 1993.

Supreme Court Temporary Restraining Order and Reliefs Sought

Petition for Certiorari and Temporary Restraining Order

Petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 seeking (a) disqualification of Presiding Justice Garchitorena and setting aside the March 3, 1993 resolution; and (b) to set aside the March 14, 1993 resolution deeming the 32 Amended Informations filed. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order on March 25, 1993 ordering Presiding Justice Garchitorena to cease sitting in the case pending final resolution and enjoining enforcement of the March 11, 1993 resolution and the scheduled arraignment.

Grounds for Disqualification — Published Letter Alleged to Prejudice

Basis of Disqualification Claim and Content of the Published Letter

Petitioner asserted that a published letter by Presiding Justice Garchitorena in the Philippine Star (July 29, 1992) prejudged the merits of the case and therefore required his inhibition. The contested letter responded to a Teodoro Benigno column criticizing the Sandiganbayan’s issuance of a hold‑departure order against petitioner and restated that petitioner had been charged “with having favored unqualified aliens with the benefits of the Alien Legalization Program.” Petitioner argued that this amounted to subconscious conclusions that would affect Garchitorena’s ability to decide impartially.

Court’s Analysis on Disqualification — Collegiality and Absence of Prejudgment of Merits

Court’s Ruling on Disqualification and Rationale

The Court held that the letter did not constitute prejudgment of the merits. The letter simply restated the allegations of the information and defended the Sandiganbayan’s practice of requiring persons charged with crimes to secure permission before travel; it did not adjudicate or opine on the merits. The Court also emphasized the collegial structure of the Sandiganbayan (three divisions of three justices each and requirement of unanimity in a division under P.D. No. 1606, Sec. 5), concluding that Petitioner’s fear of bias was “baseless.” Consequently, the Court lifted the TRO insofar as disqualification was concerned and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s March 3, 1993 resolution denying the inhibition.

Due Process and Delay Claim

Claim of Violation of Due Process by Delay and Court’s Rejection

Petitioner alleged denial of due process because of delay between the alleged act (on or before October 17, 1988) and filing of the information (May 9, 1991) and the amended informations (December 8, 1992). The Court found Tatad v. Sandiganbayan (159 SCRA 70 [1988]) inapplicable because the investigative process in petitioner’s case was continuous and complicated, involving reassignment of prosecutors, panel review, and hierarchical processing of a draft resolution, with activity traced to a January 10, 1989 newspaper report that prompted investigation. The Court also noted petitioner did not raise the delay issue in her earlier petitions, condemning the piecemeal presentation of issues.

Motion to Quash and Sufficiency of the Amended Informations

Motion to Quash, Admitted Allegations, and Distinction Between Elements and Defenses

Petitioner moved to quash on grounds the amended informations failed to state an offense under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, arguing actions were authorized under Executive Order No. 324 and that she followed an adopted Board policy. The Court explained that in a motion to quash the accused hypothetically admits factual allegations of the information; petitioner thereby admitted the elements of Section 3(e): being a public officer, approving legalization of disqualified aliens, knowledge of their disqualification, and acting with evident bad faith and manifest partiality. Claims of authority under Executive Order No. 324 and adherence to Board policy were characterized as defenses for trial rather than defects in the information. The Court also addressed the contention that the amended informations failed to allege “undue injury” by explaining Section 3(e) may be violated either by causing undue injury or by giving unwarranted benefit; both are alternative means of committing the offense.

Delito Continuado Concept and Application to the 32 Informations

Analysis of Delito Continuado and Determination That Only One Offense Was Charged

The Court examined whether the 32 Amended Informations improperly split a single crime into multiple informations. It treated the allegation as substantially one criminal act — a single approval of legalization applications affecting 32 aliens — and therefore as delito continuado (continuous crime). The Court summarized doctrinal tests for delito continuado from commentators: plurality of acts during a period, unity of penal provision violated, and unity of criminal intent or purpose. It reviewed precedents applying and declining delito continuado and analogized to American “single larceny” principles. The original information alleged a single criminal act in violation of a single penal provision occurring “on or about October 17, 1988” and causing a single injury to the Government. The prosecution had represented at the bill‑of‑particulars hearing that a single amended information would be filed. The 32 Amended Informations merely inserted individual names in place of the generic term “aliens.” Given the unity of act, law violated, intent, and the government’s manifest representation that harm was singular, the Court concluded there was, technically, only one crime.

Remedial Directive and Final Disposition

Holding, Modification of Sandiganbayan Resolution, and Orders to Consolidate

The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s March 3, 1993 resolution (denying disqualification) and modified its March 11, 1993 resolution by directing the Office of the Special Prosecutor to consolidate the 32 Amended Informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 18371–18402) into one information under original Criminal Case No. 16698. The Court lifted the TRO insofar as it enjoined Presiding Justice Garchitorena from sitting in th

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 109266)

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court filed by petitioner Miriam Defensor Santiago.
Petitioner sought to set aside: (a) the Resolution dated March 3, 1993 in Criminal Case No. 16698 of the Sandiganbayan (First Division) and to declare Presiding Justice Francis Garchitorena disqualified from acting in that criminal case; and (b) the Sandiganbayan resolution promulgated on March 14, 1993 which deemed as "filed" thirty-two (32) Amended Informations against petitioner.
The petition followed proceedings in the Sandiganbayan (First Division) in Criminal Case No. 16698 charging petitioner with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).

Relevant Dates and Chronology

On or about May 1, 1991: petitioner was charged in Criminal Case No. 16698 in the Sandiganbayan.
May 24, 1991: petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court (docketed G.R. Nos. 99289-99290) to enjoin the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with Criminal Case No. 16698; that petition was dismissed on January 13, 1992.
July 11, 1992: Sandiganbayan issued a hold-departure order against petitioner (context for later publications and correspondence).
October 16, 1992: petitioner filed a motion for inhibition of Presiding Justice Garchitorena; motion set for hearing November 13, 1992 at 8:00 A.M.
October 27, 1992: Sandiganbayan (First Division) set the criminal case for arraignment on November 13, 1992 at 8:00 A.M.
November 6, 1992: petitioner moved to defer arraignment, citing pending motion for inhibition and intended motion for bill of particulars.
November 9, 1992: Sandiganbayan (First Division) denied motion to defer arraignment.
November 10, 1992: petitioner filed motion for bill of particulars requesting names/identities of the favored aliens.
November 12, 1992: Supreme Court, upon motion in G.R. No. 107598, directed Sandiganbayan to reset arraignment to later date and to dispose of the incidents pending before it (disqualification and bill of particulars).
December 8, 1992: prosecution filed a motion to admit the 32 Amended Informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 18371 to 18402).
March 3, 1993 (and the questioned Resolution dated March 11, 1993): Presiding Justice Garchitorena issued a resolution denying the motion for his disqualification (Rollo pp. 151-164).
March 14, 1993: Sandiganbayan (First Division) promulgated a resolution admitting the 32 Amended Informations and ordered petitioner to post corresponding bail bonds within ten days.
Arraignment on the 32 Amended Informations was set for April 12, 1993 at 8:00 A.M.
March 25, 1993: Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order directing Presiding Justice Garchitorena to cease and desist from sitting in the case until disqualification question was finally resolved, from enforcing the March 11, 1993 resolution ordering bail, and from proceeding with the April 12, 1993 arraignment.
December 2, 1993: En banc decision issued resolving petition.

Factual Background

Petitioner was Commissioner of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation at the time of the acts alleged.
The allegation: she approved applications for legalization of aliens who arrived in the Philippines after January 1, 1984, in violation of Executive Order No. 324 dated April 13, 1988.
The original Information alleged that on or about October 17, 1988 (or sometime prior or subsequent thereto) in Manila, petitioner, with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, willfully, unlawfully and criminally approved the application for legalization of aliens who arrived after January 1, 1984, thereby causing undue injury to the government and giving unwarranted benefits and advantages to said aliens (Rollo, p. 36).
A public controversy followed the issuance of a hold-departure order; a column by Teodoro Benigno criticized the Sandiganbayan for issuing the hold-departure order; Presiding Justice Garchitorena subsequently wrote a letter published in the July 29, 1992 issue of the Philippine Star defending the Sandiganbayan’s action.

Original Information and Nature of Charge

The Information in Criminal Case No. 16698 charged petitioner with violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, specifically:
- That petitioner approved legalization applications of aliens who arrived after January 1, 1984, in violation of Executive Order No. 324;
- That such acts caused undue injury to the government and gave unwarranted benefits to the aliens;
- That petitioner acted with evident bad faith and manifest partiality and did so "wilfully, unlawfully and criminally" (text quoted in Rollo, p. 36).
The Amended Informations filed later reproduced the original allegation verbatim but each of the 32 Amended Informations named an individual alien whose stay was allegedly legalized.

Petitioner’s Prior Petitions, Motions and Bill of Particulars

Petitioner filed two earlier petitions with the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 99289-99290; G.R. No. 107598) relating to Criminal Case No. 16698.
Petitioner filed a motion for inhibition of Presiding Justice Garchitorena (Oct. 16, 1992).
Petitioner filed a motion for a bill of particulars (Nov. 10, 1992), asserting that the Information lacked a list of the favored aliens and that without names she could not properly prepare a defense.
At the November 13, 1992 hearing on the bill of particulars, the prosecution stated categorically it would file only one amended information embodying the legalization of the 32 aliens.

Sandiganbayan Actions and Prosecutor Filings

Despite the prosecution’s prior representation, on December 8, 1992 the prosecution moved to admit thirty-two (32) Amended Informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 18371 to 18402) (Rollo, pp. 61-126).
On March 3, 1993 / March 11, 1993 Presiding Justice Garchitorena issued a resolution denying the motion for his disqualification.
On March 14, 1993 the Sandiganbayan (First Division) promulgated a resolution admitting the 32 Amended Informations and ordered petitioner to post bail bonds within ten days; arraignment was set for April 12, 1993.

Temporary Restraining Order by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, acting on the petition for issuance of a restraining order, issued a Resolution dated March 25, 1993 ordering Presiding Justice Garchitorena:
- To CEASE and DESIST from sitting in the case until the question of his disqualification is finally resolved by the Court;
- From enforcing the March 11, 1993 resolution ordering petitioner to post bail bonds for the 32 Amended Informations;
- From proceeding with the arraignment scheduled for April 12, 1993 (Rollo, p. 194).
The TRO was part of the interim relief while the petition for certiorari was being considered.

Issue: Disqualification of Presiding Justice Garchitorena

Petitioner alleged disqualification based on a public letter of Presiding Justice Garchitorena published July 29, 1992 in the Philippine Star which, petitioner argued, prejudged the validity of the information against her and indicated bias.
Petitioner contended that the judge “cannot be expected to change the conclusions he has subconsciously drawn in his public statements when he sits in judgment on the merits of the case” (Rollo, pp. 16-17).
The specific statement complained of: Garchitorena’s letter noted that petitioner “has never informed any court where her cases are pending of her intention to travel, whether the Regional Trial Court where she is charged . . . before the Sandiganbayan where she is charged with having favored unqualified aliens with the benefits of the Alien Legalization Program nor even the Supreme Court where her petition is still pending” (Rollo, p. 158).
Petitioner considered as prejudgment the statement that she had been charged before the Sandiganbayan “with having favored unqualified aliens with the benefits of the Alien Legalization Program.”

Analysis and Rationale on Disqualification

The Court observed that the Garchitorena letter was written in direct response to a Teodoro Benigno column (July 22, 1992 Philippine Star) which criticized the Sandiganbayan’s issuance of a hold-departure order; Benigno described the order as reflecting a “perverse morality” and questioned the Sandiganbayan’s legal morality (Rollo, p. 156).
The Court noted the letter was writt