People V SDB

PEOPLE v SANDIGANBAYAN G.R. Nos.
188165 and 189063

December 11, 2003 BERSAMIN, J. On November 6, 2006, a Special Panel issued a joint resolution, finally finding
TOPIC IN SYLLABUS: Criminal jurisdiction Digest By: amb probable cause and recommending the filing of criminal informations against Perez
(SDB) et al. (this time including Extortion/Robbery). However, the informations were filed
SUMMARY: Around February 2001, Perez et al. were accused of demanding two years (and one Ombudsman-- this time Gutierrez) later, on April 18, 2008, all at
$2M from Mark Jimenez in consideration of desisting in pressuring Jimenez to the Sandiganbayan.
execute affidavits implicating certain personalities with Estrada’s plunder case,
and in order to be admitted to the Witness Protection Program. Complaints (SDB since RA 8249 Sec. 4 provides that it has jurisdiction over violations of RA
were filed in late 2002, and informations were only filed in 2008. Their cases 3019, and crimes by public officers and employees where the officer committing the
were later dismissed by the SDB because (1) they did not involve transactions offense is of SG 27 or higher. Perez was DOJ Secretary (SG 31).)
under RA 3019, and (2) there was unreasonable delay in the Ombudsman
proceedings, in contravention of the Constitution. The SC upheld the dismissal. CASE 1: VIOLATION OF SEC.3(B) OF RA 3019:
DOCTRINE: Transactions under RA 3019 are strictly in the form of - Perez et al. accused of demanding 2M dollars from Mark Jimenez, and received the
transactions under credit transactions, where a monetary consideration is same in consideration of Perez's desisting from pressuring Mark Jimenez to execute
required. affidavits implicating certain personalities for plunder alongside former President
Estrada, and in order for Jimenez to be admitted to the Witness Protection Program.
PROCEDURAL ANTECEDENTS: Criminal complaints with Ombudsman These acts took place on February 2001.
filed 2002 -> Informations filed 2008 -> Motions to Quash with SDB -> ALL
GRANTED -> Rule 65 petitions to SC A motion to quash was filed, which was granted on MR. The court's basis for
granting the motion was that there was effectively no cause of action as the
FACTS: investigation made by the Ombudsman did not pertain to a transaction under RA
3019, which was held to involve some monetary consideration as in credit
On November 12, 2002, Congressman Villarama of Bulacan delivered a privilege transactions. The Prosecution moved for reconsideration of the quashal, but it was
speech in the HOR denouncing acts of bribery allegedly committed by the "2 Million finally denied on the same ground, hence this petition for certiorari.
Dollar Man" (commited sometime in February 2001). This caused a PAGC inquiry
on the expose, all in all leading to Sec. Hernando Perez (respondent) being accused CASE 2: ROBBERY
as the said Million Dollar Man. On November 25, 2002, Ombudsman Marcelo - This is involving the supposed extortion made in relation to Case 1 (RA 3019).
requested PAGC to submit documents relevant to the expose, as well as pertinent
sworn statements in connection with it. The case was eventually referred to their A motion to quash was filed on the ground that the facts charged did not constitute
Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau and their Administrative an offense. This was denied at first, but was granted on MR, though on the ground
Adjudication Board for preliminary investigation and administrative adjudication. that the investigation proceedings under the Ombudsman took an unnecessarily long
time, violating Art. III, Sec. 16 of the Constitution, that all persons shall have a right
The office took THREE years, or until November 14, 2005, before it found cause to to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasijudicial or
file complaints against Sec. Perez and several others for violation of RAs 1379 and administrative bodies (including the Ombudsman). Indeed, it is troubling why it took
3019, perjury, and falsification of documents. However, a month later, Asst. over 18 months before a complaint was filed-- from February 2001 to December
Ombudsman Apostol issued an office order creating a new team of investigators for 2002-- there could have been possible motive in filing a complaint. Even then, it was
the preliminary investigation and administrative adjudication of the cases against only until 2008 when an informant was filed for a simple crime of Robbery. A crime
Perez et al. This led some of the respondents, particularly Escaler, to oppose the like robbery does not need painstaking and grueling scrutiny and persual on the part
continued action of the Office of the Ombumdsman, instead calling for the of the Ombudsman, lasting for over seven years. MR was denied, hence this petition.
investigation to be turned over to the DOJ (Escaler was required to file a counter-
affidavit; he filed a motion to disqualify the Ombudsman instead). This was denied (These petitions are Rule 65 petitions from the SDB to the Supreme Court, all
on December 29, 2005, even on MR (which was denied almost a year later, on May against the grant of the motions to quash.)
25, 2006).
Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT(S): The SDB had jurisdiction over the subject reiterated in Merencillo v People, promulgated sevelral years later.
matter as they involved transactions that were under the ambit of RA 3019 (and that
the Accused is a cabinet official of SG 31). The restrictive interpretation of - Moreover, since RA 3019 is a criminal statute, its terms should be construed
transactions is no longer controlling as per recent jurisprudence (see the cases under strictly against the State or against the party seeking to enforce them, and liberally
1). Moreover, delays were justified as probable cause could only have been against the party sought to be charged, thus requiring the said restricted
determined through documents that would only be available once certain treaties interpretation.
were ratified (Agreements Concerning Mutual Legal Assistance with HK and the
Swiss Confederation). 2.
ISSUE(S): - The right to speedy disposition of a case is not violated by mere mathematical
reckoning, but delays that are vexatious, capricious, and oppressive, or when
1. Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion in quashing the RA 3019 unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when without
case due to the interpretation of transaction under RA 3019. (NO!) cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the
2, Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion in quashing the robbery party having his case tried. Violating of this, per Angchonco Jr. v Ombudsman,
case due to violation of the Constitutional requirement for a speedy disposition leads to dismissal of the criminal case.
of cases. (NO!) - Here, there was certainly unreasonable delay. The explanation of the State
(insufficiency of evidence to establish PROBABLE CAUSE, such as not having a
HELD: DISMISSED. document available because they needed ratification of several treaties) was
insufficient justification for delay that took several years, especially for a crime
1. like robbery. The elements of the offense: the intimidation or pressure exerted on
Jimenez, the manner by which the money extorted had been delivered, and the
- The restrictive interpretation of "contract or transaction" under RA 3019 was identification of Perez et al. as perpetrators, were already bared before the Office of
enunciated in Soriano Jr. v SDB, where the transaction between the Government the Ombudsman. The bank documents were not indispensable to establish probable
and any other party that could be subject of an offense is one that involves some cause. In fact, the SDB noted that the Ombudsman already found that there
consideration as in credit transactions. Contrary to the State's contention that appeared to be an extortion when it found out about the February 2001 event, and
Soriano was abandoned in three cases, Mejia, Peligrino, and Chang, the ruling was of Mark Jimenez's transfer of around USD 2M to Perez et al.
never overturned.
a. In Mejia, the ruling was that "in a prosecution under the foregoing
provision of the Anti-Graft Law the value... is immaterial. What is penalized is the
receipt of the gift... in connection with a contract ot transaction with the
Government..." It did not rule on the interpretation of 'transaction.'
b. In Peligrino, in issue was the defense of the Accused in that he merely
informed the complainant of the tax deficiences, and that the money was just given
to him for request of reduction of the deficiency amount. This was not allowed by
the Court, and more importantly, the Case did not deal with the interpretation of
the term transaction.
c. In Chang, in issue was the involvement of the Accused in the offense, as
conspiracy was alleged. Though it referred to a transaction that brought the case
within the ambit of RA 3019, the Court did not rule upon the interpretation of the
term
- In all these cases, the Court did NOT rule upon the term, as it was not decisive for
their respective issues. It should be noted that the Soriano ruling was later
Page 2 of 2

People V SDB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V SDB

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V SDB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE v SANDIGANBAYAN G.R. Nos.

188165 and 189063

You might also like