HERMINIO DISINI vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. NO. 169823 SEPTEMBER 11, 2003
PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU ARE PRESUMED THAT YOU HAVE READ THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE CASE. THIS IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVIEW. *Read at your own risk* :)
FACTS:
· June 30, 2004 – Office of the OMB ➜ SB- 2 information against Herminio Disini – corruption of public officials, Art 212 in rel. to Art 210 (RPC) and violation of RA 3019
➤ Conspiring together and confederating with former Pres. Marcos
➤ Taking advantage of close personal relation, intimacy and free access
· Aug. 2 – Disini ➜MTQ – crim actions has been extinguished by PRESCRIPTION and information do not conform to the prescribed form ➜OPPOSED
· Sept. 16 – Disini ➜VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION for arraignment ➜ Plea of NOT GUILTY ➜to obtain the SB’s favorable action on his Motion for permission to travel abroad
· Jan. 17, 2005 – SB ➜DENIED ➜DISINI ➜ MR ➜DENIED
· (Disini’s) ➜ challenged the jurisdiction of SB ➜ information did NOT allege that the charges were being filed pursuant to and in connection with EO 1, 2, 14, 14-01; (2) allegations neither pertained to the recovery of ill-gotten wealth nor involved sequestration cases; (3) cases filed by the OMB instead of PCGG; (4) private individual, NOT charged as co-principal, accomplice, accessory of a public officers, should be in regular courts.
HELD: SB has OEJ over the offense charged
· SG ➜ SB has jurisdiction over the offense charged because the crim cases were filed within the purview of SEC. 4(C) of RA 8242 and both complaints were initially filed by the PCGG pursuant to its mandate.
➤ He is involved in the same transaction, specifically the contacts awarded through his and Marcos’ intervention in favor of Burns and Rose to do engineering and architectural design, and Westinghouse to do the construction of the PNPPP.
➤ Sec. 2, EO 1
· The offense have NOT yet prescribed
· In resolving the issue of prescription, the ff. must be considered:
1) The period of prescription for the offense;
2) The time when the period of prescriptions starts to run; and
3) The time when the prescriptive period is interrupted.
· GR: prescriptive period shall commence to run on the day the crime is committed.
ETR: “BLAMELESS IGNORANCE” DOCTRINE
(Incorporated in SEC. 2, ACT 3326)
- The statute of limitations runs only upon discovery of the fact of the invasion of a right which will support a cause of action.
- In other words, the court would decline to apply the statute of limitations where the plaintiff does not know or has no reasonable means of knowing the existence of the cause of action.
➤ Penalty of the offense charged = PRISION MAYOR
➤ Period of prescription = 15 YRS.
➤ Began to run = Discovery = 1986
➤ Interrupted from April 8, 1991 (transmission of the records from PCGG to OMB)
HENCE, 5YRS. from 1986.
OTHER NOTES:
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Prosecution of Offenses; Prescription of Offenses; ACtions; The filing of the criminal complaints in the Office of the Ombudsman effectively interrupted the running of the period of prescription.
We note, too, that the criminal complaints were filed and their records transmitted by the PCGG to the Office of the Ombudsman on April 8, 1991 for the conduct the preliminary investigation.In accordance with Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code and the ruling in Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department of Justice, the filing of the criminal complaints in the Office of the Ombudsman effectively interrupted the running of the period of prescription.
Criminal Procedure; Irrespective of whether the offense charged is punishable by the Revised Penal Code or by a special law, it is the filing of the complaint or information in the office of the public prosecutor for purposes of the preliminary investigation that interrupts the period of prescription.
The prevailing rule is, therefore, that irrespective of whether the offense charged is punishable by the Revised Penal Code or by a special law, it is the filing of the complaint or information in the office of the public prosecutor for purposes of the preliminary investigation that interrupts the period of prescription. Consequently, prescription did not yet set in because only five years elapsed from 1986, the time of the discovery of the offenses charged, up to April 1991, the time of the filing of the criminal complaints in the Office of the Ombudsman.\
Criminal Procedure; A complaint or information must state every single fact necessary to constitute the offense charged; otherwise, a motion to dismiss or to quash on the ground that the complaint or information charges no offense may be properly sustained.
It is axiomatic that a complaint or information must state every single fact necessary to constitute the offense charged; otherwise, a motion to dismiss or to quash on the ground that the complaint or information charges no offense may be properly sustained. The fundamental test in determining whether a motion to quash may be sustained based on this ground is whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, will establish the essential elements of the offense as defined in the law. Extrinsic matters or evidence aliunde are not considered. The test does not require absolute certainty as to the presence of the elements of the offense; otherwise, there would no longer be any need for the Prosecution to proceed to trial.
Ill-Gotten Wealth; PCGG; Section 2, E.O. No. 1, which tasked the PCGG with assisting the President in “[t]he recovery of all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates, whether located in the Philippines or abroad, including the takeover or sequestration of all business enterprises and entities owned or controlled by them, during his administration, directly or through nominees, by taking undue advantage of their public office and/or using their powers, authority, influence, connections or relationship,” expressly granted the authority of the PCGG to recover ill-gotten wealth covered President Marcos’ immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates, without distinction as to their private or public status.
That Disini was a private individual did not remove the offenses charged from the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Section 2 of E.O. No. 1, which tasked the PCGG with assisting the President in “[t]he recovery of all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates, whether located in the Philippines or abroad, including the takeover or sequestration of all business enterprises and entities owned or controlled by them, during his administration, directly or through nominees, by taking undue advantage of their public office and/or using their powers, authority, influence, connections or relationship,” expressly granted the authority of the PCGG to recover ill-gotten wealth covered President Marcos’ immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates, without distinction as to their private or public status.
Criminal Law; Corruption of Public Officers; Penalties; The crime of corruption of public officials charged in Criminal Case No. 28001 is punished by Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code with the “same penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted.”
Under the second paragraph of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code (direct bribery), if the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act that does not constitute a crime, and the officer executes the act, he shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and minimum periods and a fine of not less than three times the value of the gift. Conformably with Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, the period of prescription for this specie of corruption of public officials charged against Disini is 15 years.
Criminal Law; Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019); By express provision of Section 11 of R.A. No. 3019, as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 195, the offenses committed under R.A. No. 3019 shall prescribe in 15 years.
As for Criminal Case No. 28002, Disini was charged with a violation of Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019. By express provision of Section 11 of R.A. No. 3019, as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 195, the offenses committed under R.A. No. 3019 shall prescribe in 15 years. Prior to the amendment, the prescriptive period was only 10 years. It became settled in People v. Pacificador, however, that the longer prescriptive period of 15 years would not apply to crimes committed prior to the effectivity of Batas Pambansa Blg. 195, which was approved on March 16, 1982, because the longer period could not be given retroactive effect for not being favorable to the accused. With the information alleging the period from 1974 to February 1986 as the time of the commission of the crime charged, the applicable prescriptive period is 10 years in order to accord with People v. Pacificador.
Ill-Gotten Wealth; During the Marcos regime, no person would have dared to assail the legality of the transactions, it would be unreasonable to expect that the discovery of the unlawful transactions was possible prior to 1986.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded to hold here that the prescriptive period began to run from 1974, the time when the contracts for the PNPP Project were awarded to Burns & Roe and Westinghouse. Although the criminal cases were the offshoot of the sequestration case to recover ill-gotten wealth instead of behest loans like in Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto, the connivance and conspiracy among the public officials involved and the beneficiaries of the favors illegally extended rendered it similarly well-nigh impossible for the State, as the aggrieved party, to have known of the commission of the crimes charged prior to the EDSA Revolution in 1986. Notwithstanding the highly publicized and widely-known nature of the PNPPP, the unlawful acts or transactions in relation to it were discovered only through the PCGG’s exhaustive investigation, resulting in the establishment of a prima facie case sufficient for the PCGG to institute Civil Case No. 0013 against Disini. Before the discovery, the PNPPP contracts, which partook of a public character, enjoyed the presumption of their execution having been regularly done in the course of official functions. Considering further that during the Marcos regime, no person would have dared to assail the legality of the transactions, it would be unreasonable to expect that the discovery of the unlawful transactions was possible prior to 1986.
Criminal Law; Corruption of Public Officials; Elements of.
The elements of corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code are:
- That the offender makes offers or promises, or gives gifts or presents to a public officer; and
- That the offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents are given to a public officer under circumstances that will make the public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery.
The allegations in the information for corruption of public officials, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the crime. The information stated that: (1) Disini made an offer and promise, and gave gifts to President Marcos, a public officer; and (2) in consideration of the offers, promises and gifts, President Marcos, in causing the award of the contracts to Burns & Roe and Westinghouse by taking advantage of his position and in committing said act in relation to his office, was placed under circumstances that would make him liable for direct bribery. The second element of corruption of public officers simply required the public officer to be placed under circumstances, not absolute certainty, that would make him liable for direct or indirect bribery. Thus, even without alleging that President Marcos received or accepted Disini’s offers, promises and gifts – an essential element in direct bribery – the allegation that President Marcos caused the award of the contracts to Burns & Roe and Westinghouse sufficed to place him under circumstances of being liable for direct bribery.
Criminal; Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019); Elements of the offense under Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019.
The sufficiency of the allegations in the information charging the violation of Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019 is similarly upheld. The elements of the offense under Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019 are:
- That the offender has family or close personal relation with a public official;
- That he capitalizes or exploits or takes advantage of such family or close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any present, gift, material or pecuniary advantage from any person having some business, transaction, application, request, or contract with the government;
- That the public official with whom the offender has family or close personal relation has to intervene in the business transaction, application, request, or contract with the government.
