G.R. No. 72335-39 - Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 72335-39)

Key Dates

• October 1974: Initial report by de los Reyes filed with the PSC Legal Panel
• December 12, 1979: Formal complaint lodged with the Tanodbayan (TBP Case No. 8005-16-07)
• April 1, 1980: Referral of complaint to CIS for fact-finding
• June 16, 1980: CIS submits report recommending charges
• October 25, 1982: All affidavits and counter-affidavits submitted; preliminary investigation deemed complete
• July 5, 1985: Tanodbayan approves resolution recommending five criminal informations
• June 12, 1985: Informations filed with the Sandiganbayan (Crim. Cases Nos. 10499–10503)
• August 9, 12 & September 17, 1985: Sandiganbayan resolutions denying motion to quash
• October 16, 1985: Petition for certiorari and prohibition filed with the Supreme Court
• October 22, 1985: Temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court
• March 21, 1988: Decision rendered by the Supreme Court (En Banc)

Applicable Law

• 1973 Philippine Constitution, Bill of Rights
– Section 1 (due process)
– Section 16 (prompt disposition of cases)
• Presidential Decree No. 911 (preliminary investigation)
• Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
– Section 3(b), 3(e) (graft, corruption)
– Section 5 (conflict of interest)
– Section 7 (mandatory filing of statements of assets)
• 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure
– Rule 117, Section 2 (grounds to quash)
– Rule 117, Section 4 (curable defects by amendment)
• Batas Pambansa Blg. 195 (extension of prescriptive periods)

Nature of the Petition

The petition challenges:

The Tanodbayan’s April 7, 1985 resolution approving the filing of five graft-related informations against Tatad;
Sandiganbayan’s resolutions of August 9, August 12, and September 17, 1985, which denied his consolidated motion to quash;
The ongoing trial of Criminal Cases Nos. 10499–10503 for alleged violations of R.A. 3019.

Factual and Procedural Background

In October 1974 de los Reyes filed a graft report against Tatad with the PSC Legal Panel, which lay dormant until December 1979—shortly after Tatad’s resignation was publicly known. The resurrected complaint was referred to the CIS on April 1, 1980. CIS Investigator Dizon, on June 16, 1980, concluded that evidence supported violations of Sections 3(e) and 7 of R.A. 3019 and recommended charges. By October 25, 1982, the preliminary investigation record was complete. No resolution issued until July 5, 1985, when Special Prosecutor Buzon’s April 1, 1985 resolution was finally approved, and on June 12, 1985, informations were lodged against Tatad in the Sandiganbayan.

Charges and Informations

Criminal Cases Nos. 10499–10503 charged:
• Section 3(b) – Receiving ₱125,000 as quid pro quo for releasing ₱588,000 to Amity Trading (printing referendum materials);
• Section 3(e) – Granting unwarranted benefits to D’Group (a corporation controlled by petitioner’s brother-in-law) through manifest partiality;
• Section 7 – Failure to file statements of assets and liabilities for calendar years 1973, 1976, and 1978.

Motion to Quash and Opposition

Tatad’s consolidated motion to quash (July 22, 1985) argued:

Denial of due process and right to speedy disposition;
Prescription of offenses in Crim. Cases 10499–10501;
Facts in Crim. Case 10500 fail to constitute an offense;
4–6. Lack of prima facie evidence in various cases.
Tanodbayan opposed, contending that the 1980 filing interrupted prescription, that failure to file asset declarations under P.D. 379 is distinct from anti-graft obligations, and that P.D. 911’s ten-day resolution period is directory, not mandatory.

Sandiganbayan Resolutions

On August 9, 1985, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash for lack of merit but directed amendment of Crim. Case 10500’s date. Tatad complied on August 10, and his motion for reconsideration was denied on September 17, 1985.

Supreme Court Intervention

The petition was filed October 16, 1985; on October 22 the Supreme Court issued a TRO staying proceedings. After comment and successor-official manifestations, the Court undertook full review.

Legal Issues Presented

• Violation of due process and right to a speedy disposition due to inordinate delay in resolving the preliminary investigation (P.D. 911)
• Prescription of the alleged offenses
• Alleged discriminatory or politically motivated prosecution
• Prima facie sufficiency of evidence
• Failure to raise amnesty issues before the Sandiganbayan

Due Process and Speedy Disposition Analysis

Under the 1973 Constitution’s due process and Section 16, Bill of Rights, undue delay may justify dismissal before trial. Alth

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 72335-39)

Facts of the Case

In October 1974, Antonio de los Reyes, then Head Executive Assistant of the DPI and Assistant OIC of the Bureau of Broadcasts, filed a formal report with the PSC’s Legal Panel charging Francisco S. Tatad, Secretary of Public Information, with violations of Republic Act No. 3019.
No action followed until December 12, 1979—after Tatad’s resignation—when de los Reyes lodged a formal complaint with the Tanodbayan (TBP Case No. 8005-16-07), echoing his 1974 allegations.
On April 1, 1980, the Tanodbayan referred the complaint to the CIS for fact-finding. CIS Investigator Roberto P. Dizon reported on June 16, 1980, concluding probable violations of Sec. 3(e) and Sec. 7 of RA 3019 by Tatad and recommending appropriate legal action.

Tanodbayan’s Preliminary Investigation

Tatad moved to dismiss for immunity under PD 1791; the motion was denied on July 26, 1982, and again on October 5, 1982.
By October 25, 1982, all affidavits and counter-affidavits were on record, ready for Tanodbayan resolution.
Despite readiness in 1982, Tanodbayan approved Special Prosecutor Marina Buzon’s April 1, 1985 resolution only on July 5, 1985, recommending filing of five separate informations against Tatad.

Informations Filed Before the Sandiganbayan

Criminal Case No. 10499 (Sec. 3(b) RA 3019): Tatad allegedly received ₱125,000 from Amity Trading Corp.’s president on July 16, 1973, as consideration for releasing ₱588,000 for printing services.
Criminal Case No. 10500 (Sec. 7 RA 3019): Failure to file a sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities for calendar year 1973 (alleged commission date January 31, 1974; later amended to September 30, 1974).
Criminal Case No. 10501 (Sec. 3(e) RA 3019): Granting unwarranted benefits to Marketing Communication Group, Inc. (D’Group) of which his brother-in-law was president, by transferring SEARCH’s funds and assets without accounting (May 1975).
Criminal Case N