10. binay v. sandiganbayan, gr 120681-83 (october 1, 1999)

7/25/2019 10. Binay v. Sandiganbayan, GR 120681-83 (October 1, 1999)

1/26

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. Nos. 120681-83 October 1, 1999

JEJOMAR C. !NA", petitioner,vs.#ON. SAN$!GANA"AN %T&'r( $')'s'o*+ *( t&e $EPARTMENT O !NTER!OR AN$ OCAGO/ERNMENT,respondents.

G.R. No. 128136 October 1, 1999

MAR!O C. MAGSA"SA", RANC!SCO . CAST!O, CR!ST!NA $. MA!OG, REG!NO E.MAAP!T, ER!N$A !. MASANGCA" *( /!CENTE $E A ROSA, petitioner,vs.#ON. SAN$!GANA"AN, #ON. OMU$SMAN *( 'ts PROSECUTOR EN$E ARERRAS-SU!T *( STATE PROSECUTORS ER!C #ENR" JOSEP# . MAONGA *( G!$EON C.MEN$OA, respondents.

APUNAN, J.:

Pursuant to Section 4, Article X of the !"#$ Constitution, Presidential %ecree No. !4&' created anAnti()raft Court *no+n as the Sandianba-an. Since then the urisdiction of the Sandianba-an hasunderone various chanes, 1the /ost recent of +hich +ere effected throuh Republic Act Nos.

#"#0 2and &14". 32hether the Sandianba-an, under these la+s, e3ercises e3clusive oriinalurisdiction over cri/inal cases involvin /unicipal /a-ors accused of violations of Republic Act No.$!" and Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code 4is the central issue in these consolidatedpetitions.

n ).R. Nos. !1'&!(&$, petitioner 5eo/ar Bina- see*s to annul, a/on others, the Resolution ofthe Sandianba-an den-inhis /otion to refer Cri/inal Case Nos. 1!!, 1!0and 1!#totheReional 6rial Court 7R6C8of Ma*atiand declarinthat the Sandianba-anhasurisdictionover saidcases despitethe enact/ent of R.A. No. #"#0.

n ).R. No. !1&!$', petitioner Mario C. Masa-sa-,et al. assail the 9ctober 11, !""' Resolution ofthe Sandianba-an, reversin its 9rder of 5une 1!, !""' +hich suspended the proceedins in

Cri/inal Case No 1$1#& in deference to +hatever rulin this Court +ill la- do+n in the Bina- cases.1wphi1.nt

6he, facts, as athered fro/ the records, are as follo+s:

G.R. Nos.120681-83

9n Septe/ber #, !""4, the 9ffice of the 9/buds/an filed before the Sandianba-an threeseparate infor/ations aainst petitioner 5eo/ar Bina-, one for violation of Article 11 of the RevisedPenal Code, 6and t+o for violation of Section $ 7e8 of R.A. No. $!". 56he infor/ations, +hich +ere


2/26

subse;uentl- a/ended on Septe/ber !0, !""4, all alleed that the acts constitutin these cri/es+ere co//itted in !" durin petitioner under theCo/pensation ? Position Classification Act of !"&". Since, at the ti/e of theco//ission of the offenses chared in the above(entitled cases, the accused Ma-or5eo/ar C. Bina- +as a Municipal Ma-or, althouh in an actin or interi/ capacit-,the Sandianba-an, has, under Section 4 7e8 0, oriinal urisdiction over the casestherein filed aainst hi/. 6he alleation that MorBina- ouht to have beenclassified +ith a salar- rade lo+er than )rade >1#>, bec7seat the ti/e of theco//ission of the offenses chared &e s '(a s:r&'c& ;er'ts >e*ses


3/26

+ere co;;'tte(b- the accused, the Co;e*st'o* ? Pos't'o* C:ss'>'ct'o* Acto> 1989+as *otas -et '* e@'ste*ce. @ro/ the ver- definition of the ver- Act itself, itis evident that the Act +as passed and had been effective onl- in !"&". 6he )radeclassification of a public officer, +hether at the ti/e of the co//ission of the offenseor thereafter, is deter/ined b- his classification under the Co/pensation ? PositionClassification Act of !"&". 6hus since the accused Ma-or 5eo/ar C. Bina- +as a

Municipal Ma-or at the ti/e of the co//ission of the offenses and theCo/pensation ? Position Classification Act of !"&" classifies Municipal Ma-ors as)rade >1#>, it is a conclusion be-ond cavil that the Sandianba-an has urisdictionover the accused herein. A2 N @9RCE %RN) C9MMSS9N 9@ CRME (PauD

As of J7: 1, 1989, +hen Re7b:'c Act No. 6548too e>>ect, Municipal Ma-or 5eo/arC. Bina- had beun receivin a /onthl- salar- of P!0,!&. +hich is e;uivalent to)rade >1&> under the salar- scale provided for in Section 1# of the said Act. nder thende3 of 9ccupational Services, the position titles and salar- rades of the Co/pensation? Position Classification s-ste/ prepared b- the %epart/ent of Budet and Manae/entpursuant to Section ' of Republic AFct No. '#0&, the position of Municipal Ma-or hadbeen classified as )rade >1#.> 11

9n 5ul- #, !""0, petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari, prohibitionand mandams;uestionin the urisdiction of the Sandianba-an over Cri/inal Case Nos. 1!!,1!0 and 1!#. =e pra-ed, a/on others, that the Court annul and set aside: 7!8 the Resolutionof the Sandianba-an dated 5une ', !""0 reiteratin the denial of the /otion for reconsideration ofthe /otion to ;uashG 718 the Resolution of the sa/e court also dated 5une ', !""0 reiteratin theorder suspendin petitionerpendente liteG and 7$8 the Resolution of the Sandianba-an dated 5ul- 4,!""0 den-in the /otion to refer case to the R6C. Petitioner also as*ed that the Court issue ate/porar- restrainin order preventin the suspension and arrain/ent of petitioner. 6he Court on5ul- #, !""0, resolved, a/on others, to issue the te/porar- restrainin order pra-ed for.

9n 5ul- !4, !""0, petitioner filed an >Addendu/ to Petition76o allo+ the introduction of alternative

reliefs8,> pra-in that, should this Court hold that the Sandianba-an has urisdiction over the cases,the cri/inal cases filed aainst hi/ be dis/issedust the sa/e onthe round that the lon dela- ofthe preli/inar- investiation beforethe 9/buds/anprior to the filin of the infor/ations, deprivedhi/ ofhis riht to due processG and that, /oreover, there +as no probable cause to +arrant the filinof the infor/ations.

G.R.No.128136

Petitioner Mario Masa-sa- is the Ma-or of the Municipalit- of San Pascual, Batanas. Save forpetitioner Hicente dela Rosa, all of Ma-or Masa-sa-


4/26

aainst petitioners +ith the Sandianba-an. %irector Elvis 5ohn S. Asuncion concurred in theresolution, and Manuel C. %o/ino, %eput- 9/buds/an for uIon, reco//ended approval of thesa/e. 6he resolution +as approved b- then Actin 9/buds/an @rancisco A. Hilla +ith the follo+in/arinal note:

Authorit- is iven to the %eput- 9/buds/an for uIon to cause the preparation of the

infor/ation and to approve the sa/e for filin +ith the proper court.12

9n Auust !!, !""0, an nfor/ation for violation of Section $7e8 and 78 +as filed aainst petitionersand 5ove- C. Babao, not +ith the Sandianba-an per the 5une !4, !""0 Resolution, but 't&theRTCof t* S* Psc7: Ce*tr: Sc&oo:. 6he case +as doc*eted as 9MB(("4(!4".

n a Resolution dated 5ul- 1#, !""0, )raft nvestiation 9fficer Ernesto M. Nocos reco//ended thefilin of an infor/ation charin petitioners +ith violation of Section $7e8 and 78 of R.A. No. $!", asa/ended >'t& t&e roer co7rt.> 6he resolution, +hich +as reco//ended for approval b- Nicanor5. CruI, 9C(%eput- 9/buds/an for uIon, and approved b- 9/buds/an Aniano A. %esierto,adopted the findins and conclusions in the resolution in 9MB(!("4(!1$1 that the landscapinproect +as overpriced.

9n @ebruar- ", !""', another nfor/ation for violation of Section $7e8of R.A. No. $!", as a/ended,+as filed aainst petitioners for the overpricin of the landscapin proect, this ti/e before theSandianba-an. 6he infor/ation +as subse;uentl- a/ended on Ma- !#, !""'. E3cept for the datethe alleed cri/e +as co//itted, the infor/ation chared essentiall- the sa/e inculpator- facts asthe infor/ation filed in the R6C. 6he case +as doc*eted in the Sandianba-an as Cri/. Case No.11$#&.

9n 5une !, !""', the accused filed +ith the Sandianba-an a /otion to ;uashthe infor/ationinCri/. Case No. 11$#& onthe follo+in rounds: that the Sandianba-an had no urisdiction over thecaseG that the accused +ere chared +ith the sa/e offense in t+o infor/ationsG and that theproceedins in the Sandianba-an +ould e3pose petitioners to double eopard- nJa @NA ?EXEC69RK %ECS9N N96 REN%ERE% L PauD. 6he Sandianba-an denied the accused


5/26

/oved for a reconsideration of the 9ctober 11, !""' Resolution orderin their arrain/ent, +hich/otion +as denied on @ebruar- !#, !""#.

9n @ebruar- 1#, !""#, the accused filed the present petition.

9n 9ctober !, !""#, the Court resolved to issue a te/porar- restrainin order to prevent

respondents fro/ further proceedin +ith Cri/. Case No. 1$1#& of the Sandianba-an.

6he petition raises the follo+in issues: M6PEN@9RMA69NS @E% @9R SAME 9@@ENSE 69 %@@EREN6 5RS%C69NS ( PauD

=ad the Sandianba-an been ousted of its urisdiction over the case of /unicipal/a-or after the passae of Republic Act No. #"#0, coupled +ith the filin earlier ofan infor/ation for the sa/e offense before the Reional 6rial Court havin territorial

urisdiction and venue of the co//ission of the offense

Are the respondents 9/buds/an and the prosecutors estopped b- laches or +aiverfro/ filin and prosecutin the case before respondent Sandianba-an after the filinearlier of the infor/ation in the proper court, thereafter repudiatin it, see*in anothercourt of the sa/e cateor- and finall- to respondent court

2hether or not the filin of t+o 718 infor/ations for the sa/e offense violated the ruleon duplicit- of infor/ation

H

2hether or not the trial to be conducted b- respondent court, if the case shall not bedis/issed, +ill e3pose the petitioners +ho are accused therein to double eopard-

H

nder the circu/stances, are the respondent 9/buds/an and the prosecutors uilt- offoru/ shoppin 13

9n 9ctober ', !""#, the Court resolved to consolidate ).R. No. !1&!$' 7the Masa-sa- petition8+ith ).R. Nos. !1'&!(&$ 7the Bina- petition8.

n resolvin these consolidated petitions, the Court shall first address the co//on ;uestion of theSandianba-an


6/26

6he infor/ations aainst Ma-or Bina- +ere filed in the Sandianba-an on 5ul- #, !""4 pursuant toPresidential %ecree No. !'',1as a/ended b- Presidential %ecree No. !&'!, 14the pertinentprovisions of +hich state:

Sec. 4. !risdiction. 6he Sandianba-an shall e3ercise:

7a8 E3clusive oriinal urisdiction in all cases involvin:

7!8 Hiolations of Republic Act No. $!", as a/ended, other+ise *no+n as the Anti()raft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. !$#", and Chapter , Section 1,6itle H of the Revised Penal CodeG

%efunctD 718 9ther offenses or felonies co//itted b- public officers and e/plo-eesin relation to their office, includin those e/plo-ed in overn/ent(o+ned orcontrolled corporations, +hether si/ple or co/ple3ed +ith other cri/es, +here thepenalt- prescribed b- la+ is hiher thanprision correccional or i/prison/ent for si37'8 -ears, or a fine of P',.G PR"#$%&%, '"(&R, that offenses or felonies/entioned in this pararaph +here the penalt- prescribed b- la+ does not

e3ceedprision correccional or i/prison/ent for si3 7'8 -ears or a fine of P',.shall be tried b- the proper Reional 6rial Court, Metropolitan 6rial Court andMunicipal Circuit 6rial Court.

333 333 333

9n Ma- !', !""0, R.A. No. #"#0 too* effect. At this ti/e, Ma-or Bina- had not -et been arrained inthe Sandianba-an. 9n the other hand, R.A. No. #"#0 +as alread- in effect +hen the infor/ationaainst Ma-or Masa-sa-et al., +as filed on Auust !!, !""0 in the R6C of Batanas Cit-.

Sec. 1 of R.A. No. #"#0 a/ended Section 4 of P.%. No. !'' to read as follo+s:

Sec. 4. !risdiction. 6he Sandianba-an shall e3ercise oriinal urisdiction in allcases involvin:

a. Hiolations of Republic Act No. $!", as a/ended, other+ise *no+n as the Anti()raft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. !$#", and Chapter , Section 1,6itle H of the Revised Penal Code, +here one or /ore of the principal accused areofficials occup-in the follo+in positions in the overn/ent, +hether in aper/anent, actin or interi/ capacit-, at the ti/e of the co//ission of the offense:

7!8 9fficials of the e3ecutive branch occup-in the positions of reionaldirector and hiher, other+ise classified as rade >1#> and hiher, of theCo/pensation and Position Classification Act of !"&" 7Republic Act No.

'#0&8, specificall- includin:

7a8 Provincial overnors, vice(overnors, /e/bers ofthe san))nian) panlalawi)an, and provincial treasurers, assessors,enineers, and other provincial depart/ent headsG

7b8 Cit- /a-ors, vice(/a-ors, /e/bers of the san))nian)panlnsod, cit- treasurers, assessors, enineers, and other cit-depart/ent headsG


7/26

7c8 9fficials of the diplo/atic service occup-in the position of consuland hiherG

7d8 Philippine ar/- and air force colonels, naval captains, and allofficers of hiher ran*G

7e8 PNP chief superintendent and PNP officers of hiher ran*G

7f8 Cit- and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officialsand prosecutors in the 9ffice of the 9/buds/an and specialprosecutorG

78 Presidents, directors or trustees, or /anaers of overn/ent(o+ned or controlled corporations, state universities or educationalinstitutions or foundationsG

718 Me/bers of Conress and officials thereof classified as )rade >1#> andup under the Co/pensation and Position Classification Act of !"&"G

7$8 Me/bers of the udiciar- +ithout preudice to the provisions of theConstitutionG

748 Chair/en and /e/bers of Constitutional Co//issions, +ithout preudiceto the provisions of the ConstitutionG and

708 All other national and local officials classified as )rade >1#> and hiherunder the Co/pensation and Position Classification Act of !"&".

b. 9ther offenses or felonies co//itted b- the public officials and e/plo-ees/entioned in subsection 7a8 of this section in relation to their office.

c. Civil and cri/inal cases filed pursuant to and in connection +ith E3ecutive 9rderNos. !, 1, !4 and !4(A.

n cases +here none of the principal accused are occup-in positions correspondinto salar- rade >1#> or hiher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. '#0&, orPNP officers occup-in the ran* of superintendent or hiher, or their e;uivalent,e3clusive urisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper Reional 6rial Court,Metropolitan 6rial Court, Municipal 6rial Court, and Municipal Circuit 6rial Court, asthe case /a- be, pursuant to their respective urisdiction as provided in BatasPa/bansa Bl. !1".

333 333 333

&':ethe csesaainst petitioners +ere e*('*< '* t&'s Co7rt, Co*'*'*t Co7rt. 6his : too e>>ect, er Sect'o*10thereof, on ebr7r 23, 1995, fifteen da-s after its co/plete publication on @ebruar- &, !""# inthe!ornal and*ala+a, t+o ne+spapers of eneral circulation. %E N96CE ( PauD

As further a/ended b- Section 4 of R.A. No. &14", Section 4 of P.%. No. !'' no+ reads:


8/26

Sec. 4. !risdiction. 6he ,andi)ana+an shall e3ercise e3clusive oriinalurisdiction in all cases involvin:

a. Hiolations of Republic Act No. $!", as a/ended, other+ise *no+n as the Anti()raft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. !$#", and Chapter , Section 1,6itle H, Boo* of the Revised Penal Code, +here one or /ore of the accused are

officials occup-in the follo+in positions in the overn/ent, +hether in aper/anent, actin or interi/ capacit-, at the ti/e of the co//ission of the offense:

7!8 9fficials of the e3ecutive branch occup-in the position of reionaldirector and hiher, other+ise classified as rade >1#> and hiher, of theCo/pensation and Position Classification Act of !"&" 7Republic Act No.'#0&8, specificall- includin:

7a8 Provincial overnors, vice(overnors, /e/bers ofthe san))nian) panlalawi)an, and provincial treasurers, assessors,enineers, and other provincial depart/ent headsG

7b8 Cit- /a-ors, vice(/a-ors, /e/bers of the san))nian)panlnsod, cit- treasurers, assessors, enineers, and other cit-depart/ent headsG

7c8 9fficials of the diplo/atic service occup-in the position of consuland hiherG

7d8 Philippine ar/- and air force colonels, naval captains, and allofficers of hiher ran*G

7e8 9fficers of the Philippine National Police +hile occup-in theposition of provincial director and those holdin the ran* of senior

superintendent or hiherG

7f8 Cit- and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officialsand prosecutors in the 9ffice of the 9/buds/an and specialprosecutorG

78 Presidents, directors or trustees, or /anaers of overn/ent(o+ned or controlled corporations, state universities or educationalinstitutions or foundations.

718 Me/bers of Conress and officials thereof classified as )rade >1#> andup under the Co/pensation and Position Classification Act of !"&"G

7$8 Me/bers of the udiciar- +ithout preudice to the provisions of theConstitutionG

748 Chair/en and /e/bers of Constitutional Co//issions, +ithout preudiceto the provisions of the ConstitutionG and

708 All other national and local officials classified as )rade >1#> and hiherunder the Co/pensation and Position Classification Act of !"&".


9/26

A/end/entsD b. 9ther offenses or felonies &et&er s';:e or co;:e@e( 't&ot&er cr';esco//itted b- the public officials and e/plo-ees /entioned insubsection 7a8 of this section in relation to their office.

d. Civil and cri/inal cases filed pursuant to and in connection +ith E3ecutive 9rderNos. !, 1, !4 and !4(A, issued in !"&'.

n cases +here none of the accused are occup-in positions correspondin to salar-rade >1#> or hiher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. '#0&, or ;':'trandPNP officers /entioned above, e3clusive oriinal urisdiction thereof shall be vestedin the proper reional trial court, /etropolitan trial court, /unicipal trial court, and/unicipal circuit trial court, as the case /a- be, pursuant to their respective

urisdictions as provided inatas Pamansa l). !1", as a/ended.

Petitioners contend that the- do not co/e under the e3clusive oriinal urisdiction of theSandianba-an because:

7!8 At the alleed ti/e of the co//ission of the cri/es chared, petitioner /unicipal /a-ors +ere

not classified as )rade 1#.

718 Municipal /a-ors are not included in the enu/eration in Section 4a7!8 of P.%. No. !'', asa/ended b- R.A. No. #"#0.

7$8 Conressional records reveal that the la+ did not intend /unicipal /a-ors to co/e under thee3clusive oriinal urisdiction of the Sandianba-an. Herbal eisD

A

n support of his contention that his position +as not that of )rade 1#, Ma-or Bina- arues:

. . . 6he ne+ la+


10/26

Ma- !""' at San Pascual, Batanas for +hatever leal purpose andJor purposes it/a- serve.

6he Court does not subscribe to the /anner b- +hich petitioners classif- )rades.

6he Constitution 19states that in providin for the standardiIation of co/pensation of overn/ent

officials and e/plo-ees, Conress shall ta*e >into account the nature of the responsibilitiespertainin to, and the ;ualifications re;uired for their positions,> thus:

6he Conress shall provide for the standardiIation of co/pensation of overn/entofficials, includin those in overn/ent(o+ned or controlled corporations +ith oriinalcharters, ta*in into account the nature of the responsibilities pertainin to, and the;ualifications re;uired for their positions.

Corollar- thereto, Republic Act No. '#0& 20provides in Section 1 thereof thatdi//erences in pa+ areto e ased>pon sstantie di//erences in dties and responsiilities and ali/icationreirements o/ the positions.> n short, the nature of an official's position should be thedetermining factor in the fixing of his or her salary. 6his is not onl- /andated b- la+ but dictated

b- loic as +ell.

Consistent +ith these policies, the la+ e/plo-s the sche/e *no+n as the > defined inPresidential %ecree No. "&0 21as includin

. . . all c:sses o> os't'o*s &'c&, :t&o7 ('>>'c7:t *(reso*s'b':'t'es *( :e)e: o> 7:'>'ct'o* re7're;e*ts o> t&e or to rr*t t&e'*c:7s'o* o> s7c& c:sses o> os't'o*s 't&'* o*e r* bs'c co;e*st'o*. 22

6he rade, therefore, depends upon the nature of one'c':Ds s:r ; be :ess t&* t&t rescr'be( >or &'sGr(e s'*ce &'s s:r (ee*(s :so o* t&e c:ss *( >'**c': cb':'t o> &'s or &erresect')e :oc: '@es t&e o>>'c':Ds >'c':Ds proofb7ta ;tter o> law, of &'c&the Co7rt ;7st te B7('c': *ot'ce. 2


11/26

As both the 1989and 1995)ers'o*so>the !*(e@ o> Occ7t'o*: Ser)'ces, Pos't'o* T't:es *(S:r Gr(es:'stthe M7*'c': Mor7*(erS:r Gr(e 25, petitioner /a-ors co/e +ithinthe e3clusive oriinal urisdiction of the Sandianba-an. Petitioner /a-ors are >local officialsclassified as )rade >1#> and hiher under the Co/pensation and Position Classification Act of!"&",> under the catchall provision, Section 4a708 of P.%. No. !'', as a/ended b- R.A. No. #"#0.More accuratel-, petitioner /a-ors are >oFfficials of the e3ecutive branch occup-in the positions of

reional director and hiher, other+ise classified as rade >1#> and hiher, of the Co/pensation andPosition Classification Act of !"&",> under Section 4a7!8 of P.%. No. !'', as a/ended b- R.A. No.#"#0. 24

B

Petitioners, ho+ever, arue that the- are not included in the enu/eration in Section 4a7!8. 6he-invo*e the rule in statutor- construction epressio nis est epressio alteris. As +hat is notincluded in those enu/erated is dee/ed e3cluded, /unicipal officials are e3cluded fro/ theSandianba-anconfir/ator- of the Salar- )rade assined b- the %BM to MunicipalMa-ors.>

C


12/26

Petitioner Bina- cites previous bills 29in Conress dealin +ith the urisdiction of the Sandianba-an.6hese bills supposedl- souht to e3clude /unicipal officials fro/ the Sandianba-an


13/26

t is not clear, ho+ever, +hether Senator Roco /eant that all/unicipal officials are e3cluded fro/the urisdiction of the Sandianba-an. n an- case, courts are not bound b- a leislator 6o this e3tent, R.A. #"#0 isretroactive.

Such a transitor- provision is not peculiar to R.A. No. #"#0G si/ilar provisions are found in other la+sreallocatin the urisdiction of the courts. 346here is no reason +h- Section # of R.A. No. #"#0should be an- different.

6he ter/ >proper courts,> as used in Section #, /eans >courts of co/petent urisdiction,> and suchurisdiction is defined in Section 4 of P.%. No. !'', as a/ended b- R.A. No. #"#0. 6he for/ershould not be read in isolation but construed in conunction +ith the latter.

6he ter/ >proper courts> as used in Section #, therefore, is not restricted to >re)lar courts,> butincludes as +ell the Sandianba-an, a special court. f the intent of Conress +ere to refer all casesthe trials of +hich have not beun to the reular courts, it should have e/plo-ed the ter/ >properreular courts> or >reular courts> instead of >proper courts.> Accordinl-, the la+ in the thirdpararaph of Section 4 of P.%. No. !'', as a/ended b- Section 1 of R.A. No. #"#0, uses the ter/>reular courts,> not >proper courts>:

6he Sandianba-an shall e3ercise e3clusive appellate urisdiction on appeals fro/the final ud/ents, resolutions or orders ofre)lar courts +here all the accused areoccup-in positions lo+er than salar- rade >1#,> or not other+ise covered b- theprecedin enu/eration. e/phasis supplied.F


14/26

Construed thus, the e//ects o/ ,ection 9 /a- be su//ariIed as follo+s: Su//ar-D

1. $/ trial o/ cases e/ore the ,andi)ana+an has alread+ e)n as o/ the approal o/R.:. No. 9;9


15/26

2. $/ trial o/ cases pendin) e/ore whateer cort has not e)n as o/ the approal o/R.:. No. 82?; then said law applies.

=a> $/ the ,andi)ana+an has 7risdiction oer a case pendin) e/oreit then it retains 7risdiction.

=> $/ the ,andi)ana+an has no 7risdiction oer a case pendin)e/ore it the case shall e re/erred to the re)lar corts.

=c> $/ the ,andi)ana+an has 7risdiction oer a case pendin) e/orea re)lar cort the latter loses 7risdiction and the same shall ere/erred to the ,andi)ana+an.

=d> $/ a re)lar cort has 7risdiction oer a case pendin) e/ore itthen said cort retains 7risdiction.

6hus, under both R.A. Nos. #"#0 and &41", the Sandianba-an retains urisdiction over said cases.

Petitioner Bina- avers in his Addendu/ to Petition that his riht to speed- disposition has beenviolated b- the inordinate dela- in the resolution of the subect cases b- the 9/buds/an.

Art. of the Constitution provides that:

Sec. !'. All persons shall have the riht to a speed- disposition of their cases beforeall udicial, ;uasi(udicial, or ad/inistrative bodies.

6he constitutional riht to >a speed- disposition of cases> is not li/ited to the accused in cri/inalproceedins but e3tends to all parties in all cases, includin civil and ad/inistrative cases, and in all

proceedins, includin udicial and ;uasi(udicial hearins. 35=ence, under the Constitution, an-part- to a case /a- de/and e3peditious action on all officials +ho are tas*ed +ith the ad/inistrationof ustice. 38

=o+ever, the r''e( osto*e;e*ts o> t&e tr': re se( >or *( sec7re( , or &e*'t&o7t c7se or B7st'>'b:e ;ot')e :o*< er'o( o> t';e 's ::oe( to e:se 't&o7t t&e rt&)'*< &'s cse tr'e(. 0E;uall- applicable is the b:*c'*< testused to deter/ine +hether adefendant has been denied his riht to a speed- trial, or a speed- disposition of a case for that/atter, in +hich the co*(7ct o> bot& t&e rosec7t'o* *( t&e (e>e*(*t 's e'ctorsas the 1F:e* t&e (e:, the 2Freso*s >orsuch (e:, the 3Fssert'o* or >':7re to

ssert s7c& r'>'c'e*t. 3n theapplication of the constitutional uarantee of the riht to speed- disposition of cases, particularreard /ust also be ta*en of the facts and circu/stances peculiar to each case.


16/26

n5atad s. ,andi)ana+an, 4the Court held that the lenth of dela- and the si/plicit- of the issuesdid not ustif- the dela- in the disposition of the cases therein. 6he >une3plained inaction> 6of theprosecutors called for the dis/issal of the cases aainst petitioner 6atad.

n:lio s. ,andi)ana+an, 5the Court also ruled that there +as no violation of the riht to speed-disposition. 6he Court too* into account the reasons for the dela-, i.e., the fre;uent a/end/ents of

procedural la+s b- presidential decrees, the structural reoraniIations in e3istin prosecutorialaencies and the creation of ne+ ones b- e3ecutive fiat, resultin in chanes of personnel,preli/inar- urisdiction, and the functions and po+ers of prosecutin aencies. 6he Court li*e+iseconsidered the failure of the accused to assert such riht, and the lac* of preudice caused b- thedela- to the accused.

n,antia)o s. Garchitorena, 8the co/ple3it- of the issues and the failure of the accused to invo*eher riht to speed- disposition at the appropriate ti/e spelled defeat to her clai/ to the constitutionaluarantee.

n 4adalin s. P"&:@s :dministrator, 9the Court, considerin also the co/ple3it- of the cases 7>notrun(of(the(/ill variet->8 and the conduct of the parties< la+-ers, held that the riht to speed-

disposition +as not violated therein.

n petitioner Bina-


17/26

C9A the preli/inar- investiation +as held inabe-ance until the sub/ission of the final report.

!.$. 9n March !, !"&", the first part of the @inalReport on Audit of Ma*ati +as received b- the 9fficeof the 9/buds/an and +as trans/itted for purposes

of the ensurin preli/inar- investiation to the6anodba-an +hich received the sa/e on March 11,!"&".

!.4. 6his first part of the @inal Report contained thefifteen 7!08 adverse findins, above else+here statedas the basis of Bobb- Brillante


18/26

0. pon bein ordered to co//ent on the said April 1, !""1 affidavitof Marissa Chan, 5eo/ar Bina- sub/itted his co//ent thereto on

April $, !""1.

'. 9n Auust 4, !""$, the nvestiation Panel sub/itted to the%eput- Special Prosecutor its Resolution disposin the preli/inar-

investiation of the case.

'.!. 9n Auust !, !""$ the said Resolution +asapproved b- the Special Prosecutor, +ho for+ardedthe sa/e and the entire records to the 9ffice of the9/buds/an for revie+ andJor final action.

'.1. 9n Auust !', !""4, the Revie+ Panel of the9/buds/an sub/itted to the latter its revie+ actionfor approval.

'.$. 9n Auust !", !""4G the 9/buds/an approved

so/e of the reco//endations of the Revie+ Panel anddirected the preparation and filin of the infor/ations. 40

@urther/ore, the prosecution is not bound b- the findins of the Co//ission on Audit 7C9A8G it /ustrel- on its o+n independent ud/ent in the deter/ination of probable cause. Accordinl-, theprosecution had to conduct its o+n revie+ of the C9A findins. 5udin fro/ said findins, +e findthat the cses ere s7>>'c'e*t: co;:e@, t&7s B7st'>'*< t&e :e* t';e >or t&e'r reso:7t'o*.

As held b- the Sandianba-an in its Resolution dated March 1", !""0 den-in the Motion to Ouash:

1. 6en chares are involved in these cases and the prosecution,unable to rel- on the ra+ findins of the Co//ission on Audit in !0reports caused the investiation and e3a/ination of thousands ofvouchers, pa-rolls, and supportin docu/ents considerin that noless than the Chair/an of the Co//ission on Audit, assisted b- atea/ supervisor and ! tea/ /e/bers had to ta*e part in theconduct of a final audit consistin of evaluation and anal-sis of theinitial findins in the !0 ra+ reports, the cases /ust have involvedco/plicated leal and factual issues +hich do +arrant or ustif- aloner period of ti/e for preli/inar- investiation.

333 333 333

0. n the 6A6A% case, the preli/inar- investiation +as resolved close tothree 7$8 -ears fro/ the ti/e all the counter(affidavits +ere sub/itted tothe 6anodba-an, not+ithstandin the fact that ver- fe+ docu/entar- and

testi/onial evidence +ere involved. n the above(entitled cases, thepreli/inar- investiation of all ten 7!8 cases +as ter/inated in /erel-t+o 718 -ears and four 748 /onths fro/ the date Ma-or Bina- filed his lastpleadin, on April $, !""1. 41

Petitioner clai/s that the Resolution of the Sandianba-an orderin his suspensionpendente lite isun+arranted since the infor/ations charin hi/ +ere not valid. 6his contention, ho+ever, /ust failin vie+ of our pronounce/ent that there +as no dela- in the resolution of the subect cases in


19/26

violation of his riht to speed- disposition. Accordinl-, the infor/ations in ;uestion are valid andpetitioner':e(be>orethe RTC,R.A. No. #"#0 +as alread- in effect and, under said la+,B7r's('ct'o*over the case ert'*e(totheS*('ro; (o'*< so s';:bec7se 't ;(e ;'ste be>ore '* t&e c&o'ce o> t&e roer >or7; . n such asituation, the onl- authorit- the first court can e3ercise is to dis/iss the case for lac*of urisdiction. 6his has to be so as a contrar- conclusion +ould allo+ a part- todivest the co/petent court of its urisdiction, +hether erroneousl- or evendeliberatel-, in deroation of the la+.

t is true that the Court has ruled in certain cases 46that estoppel prevents a part- fro/ ;uestioninthe urisdiction of the court that the part- hi/self invo*ed. Estoe:, ho+ever, re;'*sthe


20/26

e@cet'o*rather than the rule, the rule bein thatB7r's('ct'o* 's )este( b :. 45Even in thoseinstances +here the Court applied estoppel, the part- estopped consistentl- invo*ed the urisdictionof the court and activel- participated in the proceedins, i/punin such urisdiction onl- +hen faced+ith an adverse decision. 6his is not the case here. After discoverin that a si/ilar infor/ation hadearlier been filed in the R6C, respondents pro/ptl- as*ed the trial court to refer the case to theSandianba-an, +hich /otion +as follo+ed b- a /otion to resolve the previous /otion. 6here +as

no consistent invocation of the R6CPeople of the Philippines.> 48Even then, the doctrine of estoppel doesnot appl- as aainst the people in cri/inal prosecutions.49Hiolations of the Anti()raft and CorruptPractices Act, li*e atte/pted /urder, 60is a public offense. Social and public interest de/and thepunish/ent of the offenderG hence, cri/inal actions for public offenses cannot be +aived orcondoned, /uch less barred b- the rules of estoppel. 61

6he filin of the infor/ation in the Sandianba-an did not put petitioners in double eopard- eventhouh the- had alread- pleaded >not uilt-> to the infor/ation earlier filed in the R6C. 6he first

Beor(*e)erttc&e(in the first place, the RTC*otbein *ot be'* co;ete*tB7r's('ct'o*. 6here can be no double eopard- +here the accused entered a plea in a court that hadno urisdiction. 626he re/ed- of petitioners, therefore, +as not to /ove for the ;uashal of theinfor/ation pendin in the,andi)ana+an on the round of dole 7eopard+. 636heir re/ed- +as to/ove for the ;uashal of the infor/ation pendin in the R54 on the round of lacB o/ 7risdiction. 6

6he contention that the filin of the infor/ation in the Sandianba-an violated the rule aainstduplicitous infor/ations is patentl- un/eritorious. 6hat rule presupposes that there is one co/plaintor infor/ation charin not one offense, but t+o or /ore offenses. 6hus, Rule !! of the Rules of

Court states:

Sec. !$. %plicit+ o/ o//ense. A co/plaint or infor/ation /ust chare but oneoffense, e3cept onl- in those cases in +hich e3istin la+s prescribe a sinlepunish/ent for various offenses.

Non(co/pliance +ith this rule is a round for ;uashin the duplicitous co/plaint or infor/ation underRule !!#:

Sec. $. Gronds. 6he accused /a- /ove to ;uash the co/plaint or infor/ationon an- of the follo+in rounds:

333 333 333

7e8 6hat /ore than one offense is chared e3cept in those cases in +hich e3istinla+s prescribe a sinle punish/ent for various offensesG

333 333 333


21/26

=ere, et't'o*ersare >ce(not +ith one in/ormation charinmore than one o//ense but +ithmorethan one information c&ror7;, a rt sees >)orb:e o'*'o*7other than b- appeal or certiorari8 in *ot&er, or &e* &e '*st't7tes to or

;ore ct'o*s or rocee('*


22/26

trial in the anti(raft court had not -et co//enced. n fact, Bina- had not been arrained -et. 6heseundisputed facts are plainl- overned b- the una/biuous provision of Section #, RA #"#0, +hichreads:

Sec. #. pon the effectivit- of this Act, all cri/inal cases in +hich trial has not beunin the Sandianba-an shall be referred to the proper courts.

6he /aorit-, ho+ever, co/plicates the above s-lloistic application of the la+ b- rulin that beforeSection # could be used, a prior deter/ination as to +hich court has urisdiction over the casesshould first be underta*en. Since the aforesaid )eneral rle states that the Sandianba-an retains

urisdiction over /unicipal /a-ors, then Bina-proper courts> be dee/ed to include theSandianba-an 6he /aorit-


23/26

& Sec. !$. ,spension and loss o/ ene/its. An- incu/bent public officer aainst+ho/ an- cri/inal prosecution under a valid infor/ation under this Act or under 6itle#, Boo* of the Revised Penal Code or for an- offense involvin fraud uponovern/ent or public funds or propert- +hether as a si/ple or as a co/ple3 offenseand in +hatever stae of e3ecution and /ode of participation, is pendin in court,shall be suspended fro/ office.

" ).R. Nos. !!"#&!(&$.

! Panfilo M. acson vs. 6he E3ecutive Secretar-, et al., spra.

!! Rollo, ).R. Nos. !1'&!(&$, pp. 0'(0#.

!1 Rollo, ).R. No. !1&!$', p. 4".

!$ $d., at !'(!#.

!4 Entitled >Revisin Presidential %ecree No. !4&' Creatin A Special Court to be

*no+n as Sandianba-an and for 9ther Purposes,> pro/ulated ! %ece/ber !"#&.

!0 Entitled >A/endin the Pertinent Provisions of Presidential %ecree No. !'' andBatas Pa/bansa Bl. !1" Relative to the 5urisdiction of the Sandianba-an and for9ther Purposes,> pro/ulated 1$ March !"&$.

!' Rollo, ).R. Nos. !1'&!(&$, pp. !&(!". E/phasis in the oriinal.

!# $d., at 40.

!& Rollo, ).R. No. !1&!$', p. !!0.

!" Sec. 0, Article X(B.

1 An Act Prescribin A Revised Co/pensation and Position Classification S-ste/ inthe )overn/ent and other Purposes.

1! A %ecree Revisin the Position Classification and Co/pensation S-ste/s in theNational )overn/ent and interatin the sa/e.

11 Sec. $h, P.%. No. "&0.

1$ Sec. ! and !" 7b8, R.A. No. '#0&.

14 Sec. !, Rule !1" of the Rules of Court states:

Sec. !. !dicial notice when mandator+. A court shall ta*e udicial notice, +ithoutthe introduction of evidence, . . . the official acts of the leislative, e3ecutive udicialdepart/ent of the Philippines, . . .

10 ,ee Conrado B. Rodrio, 5r.et al.s.6he =onorable Sandianba-an 7@irst%ivision8, et al., ).R. No. !104"&, @ebruar- !&, !""".


24/26

1' Cecilleville Realt- and Service Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 1#& SCRA &!" 7!""#8GHictoria vs. Co//ission on Elections, 11" SCRA 1'" 7!""48G Allarde vs. Co//issionon Audit, 1!& SCRA 11# 7!""$8G Pascual vs. Pascual(Bautista, 1# SCRA 0'!7!""18G @ael 6abin Aricultural Corp. vs. 5acinto, 1$ SCRA !&" 7!""!8G nsularBan* of Asia and A/erica E/plo-ees< nion 7BAAE8 vs. ncion, !$1 SCRA ''$7!"&48G nsular u/ber Co. vs. Court of 6a3 Appeals, !4 SCRA #! 7!"&!8.

1# Escribano vs. Avila, &0 SCRA 140 7!"#&8.

1& )o/eI vs. Hentura, 04 Phil. #1' 7!"$8.

1" Senate Bill Nos. 0"4 and #'!.

$ Pascual vs. Pascual(Bautista, spra.

$! Rollo, ).R. Nos. !1'&!(&$, p. $!1. E/phasis and underscorin in the oriinal.

$1 Ma-on Motors, nc. vs. Actin Co//issioner of nternal Revenue, ! SCRA "!&

7!"'!8.

$$ Casco Philippine Che/ical Co., nc. vs. )i/eneI, # SCRA $4# 7!"'$8.

$4 "! SCRA 14& 7!"#"8, cited in Atlas @ertiliIer Corporation vs. Navarro, !4" SCRA4$1 7!".

$0 &.)., Section # of Republic Act No. #'"! and Section & of P.%. No. !''.

$' ,pra.

$# Cadalin vs. P9EA


25/26

4# ,pra.

4& ,pra.

4" ,pra.

0 Sandianba-an Resolution dated March 1", !""0, pp. $(4G Rollo, ).R. Nos.!1'&!(&$, pp. 1$&(1$".

0! RolloG ).R. Nos. !1'&!(&$, pp. 14&(14".

01 Conrado B. Rodrio et al. vs. 6he =onorable Sandianba-an 7@irst %ivision8 etal.,spra citin)cases.

0$ 4itin) Realado, Re/edial a+ Co/pendiu/, !"&4 ed, p. ", and cases citedtherein.

04 6olentino vs. Court of Appeals, 1& SCRA 11' 7!""#8.

00 !&$ SCRA 1#" 7!""8. ,ee alsoChina Ban*in Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,1# SCRA 0$ 7!""#8.

0' &.)., Ra/ireI vs. Co//ission on Elections, 1# SCRA 0" 7!""#8G Ouintanilla vs.Court of Appeals, 1#" SCRA $"# 7!""#8G Sia vs. Court of Appeals, 1#1 SCRA !4!7!""#8.

0# Cali/li/ vs. Ra/ireI, !!& SCRA $"" 7!"&18. ,ee also%- vs. NRC, !40 SCRA1!! 7!"&'8G People vs. Eduarte, !&1 SCRA #0 7!""8G Corona vs. Court of Appeals,1!4 SCRA $#& 7!""18.

0& Sec. 1, Rule !!, Rules of Court.

0" 6alusan vs. 9fiana, 40 SCRA 4'# 7!"#18.

' $id.

'! $id.

'1 ,ee%e )uI/an vs. EscalonaG "# SCRA '!" 7!"&8G People vs. )alano, #0SCRA !"$ 7!"##8.

'$ Sec. $7h8, Rule !!#, Rules of Court.

'4 Sec. $7b8, Rule !!#, Rules of Court.

'0 Benuet Electric Cooperative, nc. vs. @lores, 1 SCRA 44" 7!""&8.

PAN)ANBAN, 5., separate opinionG

! Ruben E. Apalo, Statutor- Construction, !"" ed., p. "4.


26/26

10. binay v. sandiganbayan, gr 120681-83 (october 1, 1999)

Documents