Disini v. Sandiganbayan

Published on May 2022 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 4 | Comments: 0 | Views: 98
of 18
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

 

FIRST DIVISION [G.R. Nos. Nos. 169823-24. 1698 23-24. Sep S eptember tember 11, 2013.] 2013 .] HERMINIO T. DISINI, petitioner , vs . THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent .

[G.R. Nos. Nos. 174764-65. 1747 64-65. Sep S eptember tember 11, 2013.] 2013 .] HERMINIO T. DISINI, petitioner , vs . SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent .

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J : p

 T he Sandiganba Sandig anbayan yan notwithstanding has exclusive exclusive original jurisdiction jurisdic tion over oveindividual r the crimin criminal al a acction that involving petitioner that he is a private considering his criminal prosecution is intimately related to the recovery of ill-gotten wealth of  the Marcoses, their immediate family, subordinates and close associates. The Case

Petitioner Herminio T. Disini assails via pe petiti tition on for certiorari the resolutions promulgated by the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 28001 and Criminal Case No. 28002, both entitled entit led Peop on January J anuary 17, 2005 (denying People le v. Hermi Herminio nio T. Disini , on his motion to t o quash quash the informations) 1a   nd August August 10, 2005 200 5 (de ( denying nying his motion for reconsidera reconsideration tion of the denial of his h is moti motion on to quash), 2a   lleging that the th e Sandiganbayan Sandiganbaya n (Fir ( First st Division) Divi sion) thereby t hereby ccommi ommitted tted grave ab abuse use of disc discretion retion amount ing to amounting t o lack or excess excess of ju jurisdic risdiction. tion. Antecedents

 The Office Office of of the Ombuds Ombudsman man filed two tw o informations dated dated J une 30, 2004 charg charging ing Disini in the t he Sandiganb Sandiganbayan ayan wit with h corruption of public officials , penalized under Article Artic le 212 in relation to Article Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code (Crim (Criminal inal Case No. 28001), 28001 ), and wit with h a violation of Sec S ection tion 4 (a) of Republic Act Act 30 3019 19 (R.A ( R.A.. No. 3019), 3019) , also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Crim (Criminal inal Case No. 28002).  The acc accusatory usatory p portions ortions of the informations read as follows: Criminal Crimi nal Ca Cass e No. 28001  That hat duri during ng the the p peri eriod od from 1974 to February February 1986, 1986, iin nM Man aniila, Phil Philippine ppines, s, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused HERMINIO T.

 

DISINI, conspiring together and confederating with the then President of the Philippines Ferdinand E. Marcos, did then and there, wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously offer, promise and give gifts and presents to said Ferdinand E. Marc Ma rcos os,, cons c onsiisting of accused DISI DISINI's NI's o ownership wnership of two bill billion and fi f ive hundred (2.5 billion) shares of stock in Vulcan Industrial and Mining Corporation and four billion (4 billion) shares of stock in The Energy Corporati Corpo ration, on, with both shares of stoc stock k havi having ng then a book val value ue of P100.00 P 100.00 per share of stock, and subcontracts, to Engineering and Construction Company of Asia, owned and controlled by said Ferdinand E. Marcos, on the mechanical mechani cal and el electrical ectrical cons constru truction ction wo work rk on the Phil Philiippine Nuclear Nuclear Power P ower Plant Project ("Project") of the National Power Corporation at Morong, Bataan, Bataa n, all for fo r and in cons consiiderati deration on of accus accused ed Dis Dis ini seeking seeking and obtaining obtaining for Burns and Roe and Westi W estinghouse nghouse Ele Electrical ctrical Corporati Corpo ration on (Westinghouse), the contracts to do the engineering and architectural design and to construct, respectively, the Project, as in fact said Ferdinand E. Marcos, taking undue advantage of his position and committing the offense in relation to his office and in consideration of the aforesaid gifts and presents, di did d award award or o r cause to be awarded awarded to ssai aid d Burns Bur ns and Roe and and Westinghouse, the contracts to do the engineering and architectural design and to construct the Project, respectively, which acts constitute the crime of  corrupti cor ruption on of publ publiic off offiicia cialls. CADSHI

CONTRARY TO LAW. 3 Criminal Crimi nal Ca Cass e No. 28002  That hat duri during ng the the p peri eriod od 197 1974 4 to Fe February bruary 1986, in M Man aniila, Phi Phillippine ppines, s, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, accused HERMINIO T. DISINI, conspiring together and confederating with the then President of the Philippines, Ferdinand E. Marcos, being then the close personal friend and golfing partner of said Ferdinand E. Marcos, and being further the husband of Paciencia Escolin-Disini who was the first cousin of then First Lady Imelda Romualdez-Marc Romual dez-Marcos os and fami familly physi phys icia cian no off the Marcos famil family, taking advantage of such close personal relation, intimacy and free access, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, in connection with the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP) Project ("PROJECT") of the National Power Corporati Corpo ration on (NP (NPC) C) at Morong, Bataa Bataan, n, rreque equest st and receive receive from Burns and Roe, a foreign consultant, the total amount of One Million U.S. Dolllars ($1,000,000.00), more or less Dol ess,, and al also so from fr om W Westi estinghouse nghouse Ele Electric ctric Corporation (WESTINGHOUSE), the total amount of Seventeen Million U.S. Dollars ($17,000,000.00), more or less, both of which entities were then having business, transaction, and application with the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, all for and in consideration of accused DISINI securing and obtaining, as accused Disini did secure and obtain, the contract for the said Burns and Roe and Westinghouse to do the engineering and architectural design, and construct, respectively, the said PRO JECT, and subseque PROJECT, subs equentl ntly, y, request and receive receive subcontr subcontracts acts for f or Power Contractors, Contractor s, Inc. owned by accused DISINI DISINI,, and Enginee Engineering ring a and nd Construction Company of Asia (ECCO-Asia), owned and controlled by said Ferdinand Ferdi nand E. Marco Marcos, s, which which stat s tated ed a amounts mounts and subco subcontracts ntracts consti cons titute tuted d

 

kickbacks, commissions and gifts as material or pecuniary advantages, for securing and obtaining, as accused DISINI did secure and obtain, through the direct intervention of said Ferdinand E. Marcos, for Burns and Roe the engineering and architectural contract, and for Westinghouse the construction contract, for the PROJECT. CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

On August 2, 2004, Disini filed a motion to quash, 5a  lleging that the th e crimin criminal al action ac tionss had b been een extinguished exti nguished by presc prescription ription,, and that the inform i nformations ations did not conform to the t he presc prescribed ribed form. The Prosec Prosecution uti on oppos opposed ed the motion moti on tto o quash. 6 On September September 16, 2004, 2004 , Disini voluntarily submitt submitted ed himself himself for arraignment to obtain the th e Sandiganbayan's Sandiganbayan's favorable action action on his hi s motion for permiss permi ssion ion to t o travel   e then th en entered a plea of of not guilty to both informations. i nformations. abroad. 7H As stated, on January 17, 2005, the Sandiganbayan (First Division) promulgated its first assailed assailed resolut resolution ion denyin denying g the motion moti on to quash. 8 Disini moved for the reconsideration of the resolution dated January 17, 2005, 9 but the Sandiganba Sandiganbayan yan (F (First irst Division) denied his motion on August August 10, 1 0, 2005 200 5 tthrough hrough the second assailed resolution. 10 Issues

Undaunted, Undaunt ed, Disini commenced this spec special ial civi ivill action for certiorari , alleging that: A.

THE RE RESP SPOND ONDEN ENT T COURT COURT HA HAS S NO JURIS JURISDI DICT CTION ION OVER OVER THE OFFENSES CHARGED. 1.

THE RE RESP SPOND ONDEN ENT T COURT COURT GRA RAVE VELY LY ER ERRE RED D WHEN IT RU RULE LED D  THAT SECTION SECTION 4, PARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B) OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8249 DO NOT APPLY SINCE THE INFORMATIONS WERE "FILED PURSUANT TO E.O. NOS. 1, 2, 14 AND 14-A".

2.

THE RE RESP SPOND ONDEN ENT T COURT COURT GRA RAVE VELY LY ER ERRE RED D WHE WHEN N IT ASSU ASSUM MED  JURISDICTION URISDICTION WITHOUT W ITHOUT HAVING M MET ET THE REQUISITE UND UNDER ER SECTION 4 OF R.A. 8249 THAT THE ACCUSED MUST BE A PUBLIC OFFICER. DEHaAS

B.

THE RE RESP SPOND ONDEN ENT T COURT COURT AC ACT TED WIT WITH HS SUC UCH H GRA GRAVE VE AB ABUS USE E OF DISCRETION WHEN IT EFFECTIVELY IGNORED, DISREGARDED, AND DENIED PETIT P ETITION IONER' ER'S S CONSTIT CON STITUTIONAL UTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO PRESCRIPTION. 1.

THE RES RESPOND PONDEN ENT T COUR COURT T GRAVE RAVELY LY ER ERRE RED D IN D DET ETER ERM MINING INING  THE APPLICABLE PRESCRIPTIVE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD.

2.

THE RES RESPOND PONDEN ENT T COUR COURT T GRAVE RAVELY LY ER ERRE RED D IN D DET ETER ERM MINING INING  THE COMME COMMENCEM NCEMENT ENT OF THE PRESCRIPT PRESCRIPTIVE IVE PERIOD.

 

3.

THE RES RESPOND PONDEN ENT T COUR COURT T GRAVE RAVELY LY ER ERRE RED D IN D DET ETER ERM MINING INING  THE POINT OF INTERRUPTION INTERRUPTION OF THE THE PRESC PRESCRIPTIVE RIPTIVE PERIOD.

C.

BY MEREL ERELY YA ASS SSUM UMING ING THE P PRE RESE SENC NCE E OF G GLAR LARING INGLY LY AB ABSE SENT NT ELEMENTS IN THE OFFENSES CHARGED TO UPHOLD THE 'SUFFICIENCY' OF THE INFORMATIONS IN CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 28001 AND 28002, THE RESPONDENT RESP ONDENT COUR COURT T DEMONSTRATED DEMONSTRATED ITS PREJUDGMENT OVER THE SUBJECT CASES AND ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF ITS DISCRETION.

D.

THE RE RESPO SPOND NDEN ENT T COUR COURT T AC ACT TED WIT WITH HG GRA RAVE VE ABUS ABUSE E OF DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO QUASH THE INFORMATIONS DESPITE  THEIR HEIR UTT UTTER ER FAILURE T TO O COMPLY W ITH T THE HE PRESC PRESCRIBED RIBED FORM FORM,,  THUS EFFECTIVELY EFFECTIVELY DENYING DENYING T THE HE ACCUS ACCUSED ED HIS C CONSTIT ONSTITUTIONAL UTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM. 11 Ruling

 The petiti petition on for for certiorari h   as no merit. 1. Preliminary Prelimi nary Co Considerations nsiderations

 To pro prope perly rly resolve resolve this cas case, e, referenc reference e is made to the ruling of the Court in G.R. G.R. No.   hich involved the civil civil 175730 entitled Hermin Herminio io Disini v. Sandiga Sandiganbayan  nbayan , 12w action ac tion for reconveyance, reconveyance, revers reversion, ion, account accounting, ing, restituti restit ution, on, and damages (Civil Case No. 0013 entitled entitl ed Repub Republic lic v. Hermini Herminio o T. Disini, et al.) filed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) against Disini and others. 13 The amended complaint in Civil Case No. 0013 alleged that Disini had acted in unlawful concert oncert with w ith his co-de co-defendants fendants in acquiri acquiring ng and acc accumulati umu lating ng ill ill-gotten -gotten wealth w ealth through the misappropriation of public funds, plunder of the nation's wealth, extortion, extorti on, embezzlement, embezzlement, and other oth er acts acts of corruption, 14a   s follows: 4. De Defe fend nda ant H HER ERM MINIO T. T. DIS DISINI INI iiss a close close associ associa ate of defe defend nda ant Ferdinand Ferdi nand E. Marco Marcoss and the h husband usband of the firs firstt cous cousiin of Defendant Defendant Imelda R. Marcos. By reason of this relationship . . . defendant Herminio Disini obtained staggering commissions from the Westinghouse in exchange for securing the nuclear power plant contract from the Philippine government. xxx xxx xxx 13. De Defen fenda dants nts He Hermi rmini nio o T. D Diisini sini and Rod Rodol olfo fo Jacob, Jacob, by themse themsellves ves and/or in unlawful concert, active collaboration and willing participation of  defendants Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos, and taking undue advantage of their association and influence with the latter defendant spouses spo uses in or order der to prev pr event ent di disc scllos osure ure and recovery of ill-gotten assets, engaged in devices, schemes, and stratagems such as:

 

xxx xxx xxx (c) unl unla awfull wfully ut utiilizing zing the the He Herdi rdiss Group of Compa Compani nie es and Asi Asia a Industrie Indus tries, s, Inc. as condui c onduits ts through whi which ch defendants defendants receive received, d, kept, and/ and/or or invested improper payments such as unconscionably large commissions from fr om fo forei reign gn co corpor rporati ations ons like the Westinghouse Cor Corporati poration; on; CcSEIH

(d (d)) sec secure ured d speci specia al co conce ncessi ssions, ons, pri privi villege gess and/o nd/orr bene benefi fits ts from defendants defend ants Ferdinand Ferdinand E. Ma Marc rcos os and Ime Imellda R. Marc Marcos os,, such s uch as a contract awarded to Westinghouse Corporation which built an inoperable nuclear facility in the country for a scandalously exorbitant amount that included defendant's staggering commissions  defendant Rodolfo Jacob executed for HGI the contract for the aforesaid nuclear plant; 15

 Through hrough its letter d dated ated April April 8, 1991, 16t  he PCGG PC GG transmitted transmi tted the records records of  Criminal Crimin al Case No. 28001 2800 1 and Criminal Crimi nal Case No. 28002 to then t hen Ombudsman Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez Vasquez for app appropriate ropriate action action,, to w wit: it: In line with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. versus the PCGG (  G.R. Nos. 92319-92320) dated October 2, 1990, we are hereby transmitting to your Office for appropriate action the records reco rds of the attached cr criiminal minal case which we believe believe is is s imi millar to the sai s aid d Cojuangco case in certain aspects, such as: (i) some parts or elements are also parts of the causes of action in the civil complaints[-] filed with the Sandiganbayan; (ii) some properties or assets of the respondents have been sequestered; (iii) some of the respondents are also party defendants in the civil cases. Although the authority of the PCGG has been upheld by the Supreme Court, we are constrained to refer to you for proper action the herein-attached case in view of the suspicion that the PCGG cannot conduct an impartial investigation in cases similar to that of the Cojuangco case. . . .

Ostensibly, the PCGG's letter of transmittal was adverting to the ruling in Cojuangco, Jr. v. Presid Cojuangco, Presidential ential Commi Commiss ssion ion on Good G Government overnment ((Cojuangc Cojuangco, o, Jr Jr.)  .) , 17 viz.:

. . . [T]he PCGG and the Solicitor General finding a pima facie basis filed a civil complaint against petitioner and intervenors alleging substantially the same illegal or criminal acts subject of the subsequent criminal complaints the Solicitor General filed with the PCGG for preliminary investigation. . . . . Moreover, when the PCGG issued the sequestration and freeze orders against petitioner's properties, it was on the basis of a prima facie finding that the same were ill-gotten and/or were acquired in relation to the illegal di dispo spositi sition on of coconut coco nut llev evy y funds. funds . Thus, the Court finds that the PCGG cannot conduct the "cold preliminary investigation of said criminalpossibly complaints with the neutrality of an impartial judge," as it has prejudged the matter. . . . 18

xxx xxx xxx

 

The Court finds that under the circumstances of the case, the PCGG cannot inspire belief that it could be impartial in the conduct of the preliminary investigation of the aforesaid complaints against petitioner and intervenors. It cannot possibly preside in the said preliminary investigation with an even hand. The Court holds that a just and fair administration of justice can be promoted if the PCGG would be prohibited from conducting the preliminary investigation of the complaints subject of this petition and the petition for intervention and that the records of the same should be forwarded to the Ombudsman, who as an independent constitutional officer has primary jurisdiction over cases of this nature, to conduct such preliminary investigation and take appropriate action. 19(  Bol Bo ld emphasis s uppli upplied) ed) SETAcC

It appears that the resolutions of the Office of the Ombudsman, following its conduct of the preliminary investigation on the criminal complaints thus transmitted transmi tted by the PCGG, were w ere revers reversed ed and and set as aside ide by the Court in Presidential    ith the Court requiring the Office Office Commiss Commi ssion ion on Good Go Government vernment v. Desierto , 20w of the Ombudsman to file the informations that became the subject of Disini's motion to quash quash in Crimin Criminal al Case No. 28001 and Criminal Crimi nal Case No. 28002. 2. Sandiganbayan has e Sandiganbayan exclusive xclusive and original jurisdiction over the offenses charged

Disini challenges hall enges the jurisdic j urisdiction tion of the th e Sandiganbayan Sandiganbayan over tthe he offenses charged charged in Criminal Crimin al Case No. 28001 and Criminal Case No. 28002 28002.. He ccontends ontends that: (1) ( 1) the t he informations inform ations did not allege that the t he charges charges were being filed pursuant pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order (E.O.) Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A; (2) the offenses charged w ere not of the th e nature contemplated by E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A 14 -A because the allegations in the informations neither pertained to the recovery of illgotten wealth, w ealth, nor n or involved invol ved seques sequestrati tration on cases cases;; ((3) 3) the t he case casess were filed fil ed by by the Office of of th the e Ombuds Ombudsman man instead i nstead of of by the PCGG; and (4) being a private private individual i ndividual not charged as a co-prin co-princcipal, acc accompli omplicce or acc access essory ory of a publi publicc officer, he should shou ld be prose proseccuted in the regular co courts urts instead i nstead of in the Sandiganb S andiganbayan. ayan.  The Office Office of of the Solicitor Solicitor General General (OSG) counters counters that the Sandiganb Sandiganbayan ayan has  jurisdic urisdiction tion over over the offens offenses es charg harged ed be beccause Criminal Crimin al Case Case No. No. 28001 2800 1 and Criminal Crimin al Cas Case e No. 28002 2800 2 were w ere filed w ithin the purview of Section Section 4 (c (c)  ) o   f R.A. No. 8249; and that both cases stemmed from the criminal complaints initially filed by the PCGG pursuant to its mandate under E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A to investigate and file the th e approp appropriate riate civil or crimi criminal nal cas cases es to rec recover over ill-gotten ill -gotten wealth w ealth not n ot only of  the Marcoses and their immediately family but also of their relatives, subordinates and close associates. We hold that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 28001 and Criminal Crimin al Cas Case e No. 28002. 2800 2.

 

Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1606 was the law that established the Sandiganbayan Sandiganbaya n and defined its jurisdic ju risdiction tion.. The law w as amended amended by R.A. No. 7975 79 75 and R.A. No. 8249. 824 9. Under Un der Section Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249, 824 9, the Sandiganb S andiganbayan ayan was w as vested vested with original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases involving: a. Vi Viol ola ations tions of Re Repub publlic Act No. 301 3019, 9, a ass ame amende nded, d, ot othe herwi rwise se known known as as the Anti-Graft Anti-Graft and Corrupt Cor rupt Practi P ractices ces Act, Republi Republic Act A ct No. N o. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government whether a offense: permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of in the xxx xxx xxx b. Other Other offenses offenses or fe felloni onie es whe whethe therr si simp mplle or compl complexed with with othe otherr crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) of this section in relation to their office. c. Ci Civi vill an and d cri crimi mina nall cases fi filled p pursu ursuan antt to an and d iin n con connecti nection on with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986. (Bold

emphass is s upplied) empha upplied) In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade '27' or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military or PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original  jurisdi urisdicti ction on the thereof reof shal shalll be vested vested in the proper reg regiional onal trial trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdiction as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended. DaScCH

xxx xxx xxx In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed in government-owned controlled corporations, theycourts shall be triedshall jointly with said public officersorand employees in the proper which exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them. xxx xxx xxx

It is undersc underscored ored that it w as the PCGG that had initially initi ally filed the criminal complaints complaints in the Sandiganbayan, with the Office of the Ombudsman taking over the investigation of Disini only after the Court issued in Cojuangc Cojuangco, o, JJr. r.t  he directive to the PCGG to t o refer the criminal crimin al ca cases ses to th the e Office of of the th e Ombudsman Ombudsman on the ground that the t he PCGG w would ould not be an an impa im partial rtial office fo follow llowing ing its finding of a prima facie  case being es established tablished against against Disini Disin i to sustain the t he institu in stitution tion of Civil Civi l Case No. 0013. Also underscored is that the complaint in Civil Case No. 0013 and the informations in Criminal Crim inal Case No. 28001 and Criminal Case No. 28002 involved the ssame ame transaction transac tion,, sp spec ecifi ificcally the t he contr contrac acts ts awarded through the th e int interventi ervention on of Disini

 

and President President Marc M arcos os in favor of B Burns urns & Roe R oe to do the engineering engineerin g and archit arc hitec ectur tural al des design, ign, and Westinghouse Westin ghouse to d do o the constru construcction of the Philippine Phi lippine Nuclear Power Plant Project (PNPPP). Given their sameness in subject matter, to still expres exp ressly sly ave averr in Crimi Criminal nal Case No. 28001 and Criminal Crimi nal Case No. 28002 that t hat the th e charges involved inv olved the recovery recovery of ill-gotten il l-gotten w ealth w as no longer necess necessary. ary. 21W   ith Criminal Crimin al Cas Case e No. 28001 2800 1 and Criminal Case No. 28002 being intertwi intertwined ned with Civil C ivil Case Cas e No. 0013, 0013 , the PCGG had h ad the authority to institute institu te the th e crimin criminal al pros prosec ecutions utions against aga inst Disini Di sini pursuant to E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A.   T hat Disini Dis ini was w ap private rivate ind individual ividual did didtion not2remove offe nsess cta harged harg ed from the jurisdic urisd iction tion ofas the Sandiga Sand iganbay nbayan. an. Sec Section of E.O. the No. offense 1, which taske sked d the PCGG with assisting the President in "[t]he recovery of all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President President Ferdinand F erdinand E. Marcos, Marcos, his immediate imm ediate family, family , relatives, subordinates and close associates, whether located in the Philippines or abroad, including the th e takeover or sequestration sequestration of all business business enterprises and entities entit ies owned or controlled by them, during his administration, directly or through nominees, nomi nees, b by y taking taki ng undue advantage o off their th eir public office office and/or and/or using usin g their powers, authority, authorit y, influence, inf luence, connections connections or relationship," relation ship," express expressly ly granted the th e authority authori ty of the t he PCGG to recover ill-gotten wealth w ealth covered Presid President ent Marc M arcos' os' immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates, wi without thout distinc istinction  tion  as to their private or public s statu tatus  s . Contrary to Disini's argument, too, the qualifying clause found in Section 4 of R.A.   pplied pplied only to the t he cases cases listed in Subse S ubsecction 4a and Subs Su bsec ection tion 4b of  No. 8249 22a R.A.. No. 8249, the full text of w R.A which hich follows: xxx xxx xxx

a.

Violation iolationss of Re Rep public ublic Act Act No. 3019, as amend amended ed,, othe otherwise rwise known

as the Anti-Graft Anti-Graft and Cor Corrupt rupt Practi P ractices ces Act, A ct, Republ Republiic Act A ct No No.. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense: (1)

Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of  regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade '27' and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989

(Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:

ITSacC

(a (a)) Provi Provinci ncia al gov gove ernors, vice vice-gov -gove ernors, memb membe ers of the sanggu sangguni nia ang panlalawigan and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers and other provincial department heads; (b)

City City ma mayors, yors, vi vice ce-ma -mayors, yors, me memb mbe ers of the sanggun sangguniiang pa panl nlung ungsod, sod,

city treasurers city treasurers,, ass assesso essors rs,, engi enginee neers rs and other city de departme partment nt heads; heads; (c) Offi Offici cia als of the dipl diploma omati ticc servi service ce occupy occupyiing the the posi positi tion on of consul and higher;

 

(d) Phil Philippi ppine ne arm army ya and nd a aiir for force ce col colone onells, naval naval capt captai ains, ns, and al all officers officers of hi higher gher rank r ank;; (e (e)) Off Offiicers of the Phi Phillippi ppine ne Nat Natiional onal Poli Police ce whi whille occupying occupying the the positi position on of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent or higher; (f) City City a and nd p provi rovinci ncia al prosecu prosecutors tors an and d the their assista assistants, nts, and and offici officia als and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor; (g (g)) Pre Presi side dent nts, s, di dire recto ctors rs or tru truste stee es, or ma mana nage gers rs of gove governme rnment nt-ow -owne ned d or -controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations; (2)

Members of C Congress ongress an and d offici official als s thereof cla class ssiified fied as Grade '27' and up under the Compensation and Position Classification Act

of 1989; (3) Memb mbe ers of the judi udici cia ary wi withou thoutt pre prejjudice udice to to the provisi provisions ons of the Constitution; (4)

Cha Chaiirme rmen na and nd me memb mbe ers of Constitu Constituti tiona onall Commi Commiss ssiions, witho without ut

prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and (5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade '27' and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of  1989. b.

Other Other offenses offenses or fe felloni onie es whe whethe therr si simp mplle or compl complexed with with othe otherr

crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of this sectioni  n rel r elati ation on to th thei eirr of office. fice. (bold emphasis

supplied) xxx xxx xxx

Unquestionably, public officials occupying positions classified as Grade 27 or higher are mentioned menti oned only in Subsec Subsection tion 4a and Subsection Subsection 4b, signifyi signifying ng the plain legislative leg islative intent of limitin lim iting g the qualifying clause clause to such public officials. To include w ithin ith in tthe he ambit of the t he qualifyi qualifying ng clause clause the persons persons ccovered overed by by Subs Su bsec ection tion 4c would contravene the exclusive mandate of the PCGG to bring the civil and criminal cases pursuant to and in connection with E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A. In view of this, the Sandiganb S andiganbayan ayan properly properly took cognizanc cognizance e of Crim Criminal inal Case No. 28001 and Criminal Case No. 28002 despite Disini's being a private individual, and despite the lack of any allegation of his being the co-principal, accomplice or accessory of a public official official in the commi ommiss ssion ion of tthe he offenses charged charged.. 3. The offenses charged in the informati in formations ons have not ye yett prescribed pre scribed

I n resolving the th e iss issue ue of presc prescription, ription , the followi foll owing ng must be conside considered, red, namely: (1) ( 1)

 

the period of presc prescription ription for the offense offen se charged charged;; ((2) 2) the t he time ti me when w hen the t he period of  of  prescription starts to run; and (3) the time when the prescriptive period is interrupted. 23  The information in Criminal Crimin al Case Case No. 28001 alleged that Disini had offere offered, d, promised and given gifts and presents presents to Ferdinand F erdinand E. Marcos; Marcos; tthat hat said gifts were w ere in consideration onsideration of Disini obtaining for Burns B urns & Roe and W Westinghouse estinghouse Electri Electriccal Corporation (W estinghouse) th the e ccontracts, ontracts, re resp spec ectiv tively, ely, to do the engineering en gineering and archit arc hitec ectur tural al desig design n of and to constru construcct the t he PNPPP; and that President President Marcos Marcos did award or cause whic to be the respective contracts to Burns & Roe and W estinghouse, whi chawarded acts constituted onstitu ted the crime of corruption of public officials . 24  The crime of corruption of public officials c  harged harged in Criminal Crim inal Case No. 28001 is punished by by Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code w ith tthe he "same "same penalties penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted." 25U   nder the second second paragraph paragraph of Article 210 21 0 of  accepted b by y the th e officer in the Revised Penal Code (direct bribery) , 26i  f the gift w as acc consideration onsideration of the th e exec executi ution on of an act act that t hat does not constit constitute ute a crime, and the th e officerr exec office executes utes the th e act, act, he shall suffer the th e penalty of prision mayor in its it s medium medium and minimum periods and a fine of not less than three times the value of the gift. Conformably Conformab ly with w ith Article Article 90 of the th e Revised Penal Code , 27t  he period of prescription for this specie of corruption of public officials c  harged harged against against Disini Di sini is 15 years years.. CIAHDT

As for Criminal Crimi nal Case No. 28002, Disini Di sini was w as ccharg harged ed with wit h a violation vi olation of Section Section 4 (a) of R.A. No. 3019. 3019 . By express provision of Section 11 of R.A. No. 301 3019, 9, as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg.1   95, the offenses committed under R.A. No. 3019 shall presccribe in 15 years pres y ears.. Prior tto o the amendment, am endment, the t he prescriptive prescriptive period was w as only 10 years.. IItt became years became settled in People v. Pac   owever, ow ever, that the t he longer Pacifi ific cador , 28h presccriptive period of 15 years would pres woul d not apply to crimes commi committ tted ed prior prior to t o the effectivity of Batas Pambansa Blg.1   95, which was approved on March 16, 1982, because bec ause the longer period could could not be given retroactive effect for not n ot being favorable to the accused. With the information alleging the period from 1974 to February 1986 19 86 as the ti time me of the t he comm commission ission of the crime charged, charged, the applicable applicable Pacificador  or . prescriptive period is 10 years in order to accord presc accord with w ith People v. Pacificad For crimes punishable by the Revised Penal Code , Article 91 thereof t hereof provides that presccription starts to run from tthe pres he day on which w hich the th e crim crime e is disc discovered overed by by the th e offended party, party, the t he aut authorit horities, ies, or their agents. agents. As to offenses puni punishab shable le by R.A. No. 3019, Sec S ection tion 2 of R.A. No. No. 3326 29s  tates:

Section Secti on 2. Prescri Prescripti ption on sha shalll be begi gin n to run from the the day day of tthe he commi commiss ssiion of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment.  The he prescript prescriptiion shal shalll be inte nterrupted rrupted when when procee proceedi dings ngs are institut nstituted ed agai against nst the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are di dismissed smissed ffor or reasons not ccons onsti tituti tuting ng double jjeopa eopardy. rdy.

 The ruling on the issue issue of of pres presccription in Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding 

 

Committee Commi ttee on B Behes ehestt Loans v. Desierto   30i  s also enlightening, viz.:

Generally, the prescriptive period shall commence to run on the day the crime is committed. That an aggrieved person "entitled to an action has no knowledge of his right to sue or of the facts out of which his right arises," does not prevent the running of the prescriptive period. An exception to this rule is the "bla blamel meless ess ignor gnorance  ance " doctrine, incorporated in Section 2 of Act No. 3326. Under this doctrine, "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 courts would decline to apply the statute of  limitations where the plaintiff does not know or has no reasonable means of  knowing the existence of a cause of action." It was in this accord that the Court confronted the question on the running of the prescriptive period in People v. Duque which became the cornerstone of our 1999 Decision in Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto 

(G.R. No. 130149), and the subsequent cases which Ombudsman Desierto dismissed, emphatically, on the ground of prescription too. Thus, we held in a catena of cases, that if the violation of the special law was not known at the time of its commission, the prescription begins to run only from the di disc scovery overy thereof, i.e., discovery of the unlawful nature of the constitutive act or acts. Corollary, it is safe to conclude that the prescriptive period for the crime which is the subject herein, commenced from the date of its discovery in 1992 after the Committee made an exhaustive investigation. When the complaint was filed in 1997, only five years have elapsed, and, hence, prescription has not yet set in. The rationale for this was succinctly discussed in the 1999 Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans,, that "i Loans "itt was wel welll-high impos imposss ible for the State, the aggrie aggrieved ved party, to have known these crimes committed prior to the 1986 EDSA Revolution, because of the alleged connivance and conspiracy among involved public officials and the beneficiaries of the loans." In yet another pronouncement, in the 2001 Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto  (G.R. No. 130817), the Court held that during the Marcos regime, no person would have dared to question the legality of these transactions. (Citations omitted) 31

Accordingly, we Acc w e are not n ot persuaded persuaded to hold hol d here that t hat the presc prescriptive period bega began n to run from 1974, the t he time tim e when w hen the contracts contracts for the PNPP Projec Projectt were w ere awarded awarded to Burnss & Roe a Burn and nd Westinghouse. W estinghouse. Alth Although ough the criminal crimi nal cases cases were the offshoot of  the sequestrati sequestration on case case to recover recover ill-gotten ill -gotten wealth w ealth instead i nstead of behest behest loans like in Presidential Pres idential Ad Hoc Fac Fact-Fi t-Finding nding Commi Committee ttee on Behest Loans v. Des Desierto  ierto , the connivanc onniv ance e and consp conspiracy iracy among the t he public offi officcials involved i nvolved and the beneficiaries beneficiaries of the favors illegally extended rendered it similarly well-nigh impossible for the State, Stat e, as the aggrieved party, to have known know n of the t he commi commiss ssion ion of the t he crimes charged harged prior prior the E EDSA DSA Revolution 1986. Notwi N otwithstand thstanding ing acts the highly hi publicized andtowidely-known nature ofinthe PNPPP, the unlawful orghly transactions in relation to it were discovered only through the PCGG's exhaustive investigation, resulti res ulting ng in the estab establishment lishment of a prima facie case suffi sufficcient for the th e PCGG to institute Civil Case No. 0013 against Disini. Before the discovery, the PNPPP

 

contracts, whic whi ch partook of a public charac character, ter, enjoyed enj oyed the presumption of their th eir executi exec ution on having havi ng been been regularly regularl y done in the t he course course of official func fun ctions. tion s. 32 Considering further furth er that during the th e Marcos Marcos regim regime, e, no person person would wou ld have dared dared to assail as sail the lega l egalit lity y of th the e transaction transactions, s, it w would ould be unreasonable unreasonable to expect expect th that at the th e discovery disc overy of the u unlaw nlawful ful transaction transactionss was po poss ssible ible prior to 1986. 19 86. ECISAD

We note, too, that the criminal complaints were filed and their records transmitted by the PCGG to the t he Office of the Ombudsman Ombudsman on April April 8, 1991 199 1 for th the e conduc conductt   the prelimi pre liminary nary investig investigation. ation. 33I  n accorda accordance nce wit with h Article 91 of the t he Revised Penal Code  n 

Panaguit Panag uiton, on, Jr. v. Department of JJustice  ustice , 35t  he filing a   nd the ruling in filin g of of the criminal complaints in the Office of the Ombudsman effectively interrupted the running of the period of prescription. According to Panaguiton : 36

34

In Ingc Ingco o v. Sandiga Sandiganbaya nbayan  n a   nd Sanrio Company Limited v. Lim , which involved violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019) and the Intellectual Property Code (R.A. No. 8293), which are both special laws, the Court ruled that the prescriptive period is interrupted by the institution of proceedings for preliminary investigation against the accused. In the more recent case of Securities and Exchange Commission v. Interport  Resources Corporation , the Court ruled that the nature and purpose of the investigation conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission on violations theinvestiga Revised tion Securities Act, another special law,nal is equivalent the prel pr eliiminary miof nary investigati on con conducted ducted b by y the DO DOJ J in crimi c riminal cases, cas es, andto thus effectively interrupts the prescriptive period.  The he foll followi owing ng di disqui squisit sitiion in in the Inte Interport rport Re Resour sources ces case is instructive, thus: While it may be observed that the term "judicial proceedings" in Sec. 2 of Act No. 3326 appears before "investigation and punishment" in the old law, with the subsequent change in set-up whereby the investigation of the charge for purposes of prosecution has become the exclusive function of the executive branch, the term "proceedings" should now be understood either executive or judicial in character: executive when it involves the investigation phase and judicial when it refers to the trial and judgment stage. With this clarification, any kind of investiga nvestigati tive ve proceedi pr oceeding ng ins insti tituted tuted agai agains nstt the guilty guilty pers per s on which may ulti ultimate matelly lead lead to his pr pros osecuti ecution on s hould be suff s uffiicient cient to toll prescription. Indeed, to rule otherwise would deprive the injured party the right to obtain vindication on account of delays that are not under his control.

 The prevailing prevailing rule is, therefore, therefore, that irrespe irrespecctive of w hether the offense offense charg charged ed is punishable by the Revised Penal Code or by a special law, it is the filing of the complaint or informati inf ormation on in the office off ice of of the th e public prose proseccutor for purposes purposes of the preliminary investigation that interrupts the period of prescription. Consequently, presccription did not yet set in pres i n because because only five fi ve years elapsed elapsed from 1986 1 986,, the ttim ime e of the discovery discovery of the offenses charged charged,, up to April April 1991 1 991,, the ttime ime of the t he filing fil ing of  the criminal complaints in the Office of the Ombudsman.

 

4. The informations were sufficient in form and substance

It is axiomatic that a complaint or information must state every single fact necess nec essary ary to constit constitute ute tthe he offense charged charged;; otherw ot herwise, ise, a motion to dismiss or to quash quas h on the t he ground that the t he complaint complaint or informati inf ormation on charges charges no offense may be properly sustained. The fundamental test in determining whether a motion to quash quas h may m ay be sus sustain tained ed b base ased d on this th is ground is whether w hether the facts facts alleged, if  hypothetically admitted, will establish the essential elements of the offense as defined de fined in the th e law. 37E   xtrinsic xt rinsic matters matt ers or evidence evidence aliunde are not considered. 38  The test do does es not require require abso absolute lute certainty certainty as to the pres presenc ence eo off the e elements lements of  the offense; otherwise, there would no longer be any need for the Prosecution to proceed to trial.  The informations in Criminal Case Case No. No. 28001 2800 1 (corruption of public officials)  and Criminal Crimin al Cas Case e No. 28002 2800 2 (violation of Section 4 (a) of RA No. 3019) h   ave sufficiently suffic iently complied with the requirements of Section Section 6, 6 , Rule 110 of the Rules of  Court, viz.: EIaDHS

Sufficiency of complaint or information. Ã¢â‚¬â€ A complaint Section 6. or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed.

When the offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint or information.

 The information in Criminal Crimin al Case Case No. 28001 alleging corruption of public officers  spec sp ecifica ifically lly put forth tthat hat Disini, in i n the t he period period from 1974 197 4 tto o February February 1986 19 86 in Manila, Mani la, Phil Philippines, ippines, consp conspirin iring g and confederating confederating with w ith then President President Marc M arcos, os, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously offered, promised and gave gifts and presents to President Presid ent Marco Marcos, s, who, wh o, by taking takin g undue advantage of his hi s po position sition as President, President, committ ommi tted ed the offense in relation relati on to his hi s office, office, and in considera consideration tion of the gifts gift s and presents offered, promised and given by Disini, President Marcos caused to be awarded to Burns Bur ns & Roe and W Westinghouse estinghouse the respe respecctive contracts to do do the engineering and archit architec ectural tural design design of and to construct the PNPPP. PN PPP. The felonious actt consisted of ac of causing causing the t he contracts contracts for the t he PNPPP to be awarded aw arded to Burn B urnss & Roe and Westinghouse W estinghouse by reason reason of the gifts and promises offered offered by Disini to President Marcos.  The elements of corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal  Code are: 1.

That That the o offe ffend nder er make makess offe offers rs or pro promis mises es,, or or give givess gifts gifts or presents to a public officer; and

2.

That That the o offe ffers rs or promis romises es are are ma mad de or or the g gifts ifts or pres resents ents are are

 

given to a public officer officer under circumstance circumstancess that will w ill make the t he public officer officer liable li able for direc directt bribery or indirect bribery .  The allegations 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) ( 1) Disini made an offer and promise, promise, and g gave ave gifts to President President Marcos, Marco s, a public officer; officer; and an d (2) in considera onsideration tion of the th e offers, promises and gift gifts, s, President Presid ent Marc M arcos, os, in causing causing the award aw ard of the contrac contracts ts to Burns B urns & Roe and W estinghouse by by taking taki ng ad advantage vantage of his positi position on and in committin commit ting g ssaid aid act act in relation to his hi s office, office,  he wassecond placed plac edelement under ccircumstance ircumstances s that would w ould make him hi m liable l iable for sec ond of corruption direct bribery . 39T of public officers simply required the public officer to be placed under circumstances, not absolute certainty, that would w ould make him liable for for direct or indirect bribery.T   hus, even without with out alleging that President Marcos received or accepted Disini's offers, promises and gifts  an essential element in direct bribery  the allegation that President Presid ent Marco Marcoss caused caused the aw award ard of the contracts to Burns Bu rns & Roe an and d W estinghouse sufficed to place place him hi m under circumstances circumstances of being liable for direct  bribery .  The sufficienc sufficiency y of the allegations allegations in the information charg charging ing 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: 1.

That That the of offe fend nder er has fa family mily or or clos close e pers ersonal onal re relati lation on with a public official;

2.

That That he ccap apital italiz izes es or e exp xplo loits its o orr tak takes es adva advantag ntage e of of suc such h family or close close pers personal onal relation relat ion by directly or indirectly requesting or receivin rec eiving g any prese present, nt, gift, gift , material materi al or pecuni pecuniary ary advantage from any person having some business, transaction, application, request, or contract with the government;

3.

That hat the public ublic of offic ficia iall with whom the the off offen end der has has fa family mily or close personal personal relation has h as to intervene in i n the th e business business transaction transac tion,, applica application tion,, reques request, t, or contract contract with w ith the government. CTaSEI

 The allegations allegations in the information charg charging ing the violation of of Section Section 4 (a) of of R.A R.A.. No. No. 3019, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the elements of the offense, considering that: (1) Disini, Disini , being being the th e husband of Paciencia Paciencia Esc Escolin-D olin-Disini, isini, the t he first cousin of First Fi rst Lady Lady Imelda I melda Romu Romualdez aldez-Marcos -Marcos,, and at the same time tim e the fam family ily physician physic ian of th the e Marcos Marcoses, es, had close close personal personal relations relati ons and intim int imac acy y with w ith and free access to President Marcos, a public official; (2) Disini, taking advantage of such family famil y and clos close e personal personal relations, relat ions, requested requested and received received $1,000,00 $1,00 0,000.00 0.00 from Burns & Roe and $17,000,000.00 fromwith Wes W estinghouse tinghouse, , the entities entit ies then having business, transaction, and application the Government in connection with the PNPPP; (3) President Marcos, the public officer with whom Disini had family or close personal pers onal relati relations, ons, intervened to secure secure and obtain for Burns Bu rns & Roe the engineering engineerin g and archit architec ectur tural al co contr ntrac act, t, and for Westinghouse W estinghouse the constru construcction of the th e PNPPP.

 

WHEREFORE , the Court DISMISSESt  he petition for certiorari ; AFFIRMS the

resolutions promulgated resolutions promulgated on on January J anuary 17, 2005 20 05 and A Augus ugustt 10, 1 0, 2005 by the Sandiganba Sandig anbayan yan (First Divisio Divi sion) n) in i n Criminal Crim inal Case No. 28001 and Criminal C Cas ase e No. 28002; and DIRECTSp   etitioner etiti oner to pay the th e ccosts osts o off suit. suit . SO ORDERED. Sereno, C.J., Villarama, Jr., J r., Perez  Perez   *a   nd Reyes, JJ.,c  oncur.

Footnotes   * 1.

In lieu of Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro, who took part in the Sandiganbayan, per the raffle of October 3, 2011. Rollo , pp. 51-55; penned by Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta (now a Member

of the Court), and concur concurred red in by Associa Ass ociate te Justice T Teresi eresita ta J. Leonardo-de Castro (now a Member of the Court) and Associate Justice Efren N. De la Cruz. 2.

Id.a   t 57-73; penned by Associate Justice Peralta, and still joined by Associate

 Justice ustice Le Leonardo-De onardo-De Castro Castro and Associ Assoc iat ate e Justi Justice ce De De lla a Cruz. 3.

Id. at 104-105.

4.

Id. at 108-109.

5.

Id. at 111-116.

6.

Id. at 117-128.

7.

Id. at 129-130.

8.

Supra note 1.

9. 10.

Rollo , pp. 74-103. Supra note 2.

11.

Rollo , pp. 10-11.

12.

G.R. No. 175730, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 354.

13.

Id. at 358.

14.

Id. at 359.

15.

Id. at 359-360.

16.

Sandiganbayan, rollo , Vol. 1, pp. 164-165.

17.

G.R. Nos. 92319-20, October 2, 1991, 190 SCRA 226.

 

18.

Id. at 254-255.

19.

Id. at 256-257.

20.

G.R. No. 132120, February 10, 2003, 397 SCRA 171.

21.

See the Section 1 (A), Rules and Regulations of the PCGG, to wit:

Section 1. Definition.  (A) "Ill-gotten wealth" is hereby defined as any asset, property, busi bus iness ente enterpr rpriise or ma materi terial al possess pos sessiion o off persons pers ons withi within n the purview of Executive Orders 1 and 2, acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar schemes: (1) Through misappropriation, conversion, or misuse or malversation of public funds or raids raids on the public public tr trea easur sury; y; (2) Through the receipt, directly or indirectly, of any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by the reason of the office or position of the official concerned;

(3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned governme nt-owned or contr control ollled cor corporati porations ons;; (4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation in any business enterprise or undertaking; (5) Through the establishment of agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combination and/or by the issuance, promulgation and/or implementation of  decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; and (6) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship or influence for personal gain or benefit.(  Bol Bo ld emphasis s upplied) upplied)

22.

23.

"In ccases ases where none of the a accus ccused ed a are re oc occupyi cupying ng pos posiiti tions ons correspo cor respondi nding ng to salary grade '27' or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military or PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof  s hal halll be ves ves ted in the pro proper per rregi egional onal tria triall court, cour t, metropoli metro politan tan trial court, cou rt, muni municipal cipal trial court and municipal circuit trial court as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdiction as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended." Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto , G.R. No.

130817, August 22, 2001, 363 SCRA 489, 493. 24. 25.

Supra , Note 3.

Article 212. Corruption of public officials. Ã¢â‚¬â€ The same penalties imposed upon the off o ffiicer corrupted, cor rupted, except thos those e of di disqual squaliificati fication on and suspension, s uspension, shal s halll

 

be imposed upon any person who shall have made the offers or promises or given gifts or presents described in the preceding articles." 26.

Article 210. Direct bribery. Ã¢â‚¬â€ Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of this o   fficial duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of  prision mayor i  n its medium and maximum periods and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of the gift in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed. n 

If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, and the officer executed said act, he shall suffer the same penalty provided in the preceding paragraph; and if said act shall not have been accomplished, the officer shall suffer the penalties of prision correcional, in its medium period and a fine of not less than twice the value of such gift. If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer refrain from doing something which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer the penalties of prision correcional in its maximum period and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of such gift. In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer the penalty of special temporary disqualification.  The he provi provisions sions conta contaiine ned d iin n the the prece precedi ding ng pa paragra ragraphs phs shall shall be made made ap appl pliicabl cable tto o assess ass essors ors,, arbitrat arbitrators ors,, appraisal appraisal and and cla claiim commi commiss ssiioners, oners , experts or any other other persons perso ns performi perfor ming ng public public duti duties. es. 27.

Article 90. Prescr Pr escriipti ption on o off c crim rime. e.à   ¢â‚¬â€ ¢ ۠Crime Crimess punishable punishable by death, reclusion  perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribe in twenty years.

Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years.  Those hose puni punishabl shable e by a correct corr ectiional pe pena nallty shall shall prescribe in ten ten years; years; wi with th tthe he mayor  yor , which shall prescribe in five exception of those punishable by arresto ma years.  The he crim crime e of lilibe bell or other si simi millar offense offensess sha s halll prescribe prescribe in in one ye year. ar.  The he crim crime e of oral de defam famat atiion and and slan slande derr by deed deed shall shall prescribe prescribe in in si six x months. months. Light offenses prescribe in two months. When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be made the basis of the application of the rules contained in the first, second and third 28. 29.

paragraphs of this article. G.R. No. 139405, March 13, 2001, 354 SCRA 310, 318. An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts 

 

and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin to Run .

30.

G.R. No. 135715, April 13, 2011, 648 SCRA 586.

31.

Id. at 596-597.

32.

Section 3 (m), Rule 131, Rules of Court.

33.

Records, Vol. 1, p. 164.

34.

of prescription of offenses.  ¢â‚¬â€ The period of  Article 91. Computation prescription shall commence to run from the day on à which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him.

 The he te term rm of prescripti prescription shall shall not run w whe hen n the offende offenderr iiss absent absent from the Phil Philippine ppine Archipelago. 35.

G.R. No. 167571, November 25, 2008, 571 SCRA 549.

36.

Id. at 560-561.

37.

Cruz, Jr. v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 83754, February 18, 1991, 194 SCRA 145,

150. 38.

People v. Balao , G.R. No. 176819, January 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 565, 573.

39.

 The he el elem emen ents ts of direct bribery are: 1. The offender is a public officer; 2. The offender accepts an offer of fer o orr promise or receive receivess a gi gift ft or present by himsel himself f  or through another; 3. That That such s uch off o ffer er or promise be accepted accepted or gift or present be receive received d by the public officer with a view to committing some crime, or in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime but the act must be unjust, or to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do; and 4. The act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes is connected with the performance of his official duties (Magno v. Commission on Elections , G.R. No. 147904, October 4, 2002, 390 SCRA 495, 499).

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close