9/14/2020 G.R. Nos.

147026-27

Today is Monday, September 14, 2020

Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

Republic of the Philippines

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. Nos. 147026-27 September 11, 2009

CAROLINA R. JAVIER, Petitioner,

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for certiorari1 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Carolina R. Javier
in Criminal Case Nos. 25867 and 25898, entitled "People of the Philippines, Plaintiff versus Carolina R. Javier,
Accused," seeking to nullify respondent Sandiganbayan's: (1) Order2 dated November 14, 2000 in Criminal Case
No. 25867, which denied her Motion to Quash Information; (2) Resolution3 dated January 17, 2001 in Criminal Case
No. 25898, which denied her Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Quash Information; and (3) Order4 dated
February 12, 2001, declaring that a motion for reconsideration in Criminal Case No. 25898 would be superfluous as
the issues are fairly simple and straightforward.

The factual antecedents follow.

On June 7, 1995, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8047,5 or otherwise known as the "Book Publishing Industry Development
Act", was enacted into law. Foremost in its policy is the State's goal in promoting the continuing development of the
book publishing industry, through the active participation of the private sector, to ensure an adequate supply of
affordable, quality-produced books for the domestic and export market.

To achieve this purpose, the law provided for the creation of the National Book Development Board (NBDB or the
Governing Board, for brevity), which shall be under the administration and supervision of the Office of the President.
The Governing Board shall be composed of eleven (11) members who shall be appointed by the President of the
Philippines, five (5) of whom shall come from the government, while the remaining six (6) shall be chosen from the
nominees of organizations of private book publishers, printers, writers, book industry related activities, students and
the private education sector.

On February 26, 1996, petitioner was appointed to the Governing Board as a private sector representative for a term
of one (1) year.6 During that time, she was also the President of the Book Suppliers Association of the Philippines
(BSAP). She was on a hold-over capacity in the following year. On September 14, 1998, she was again appointed to
the same position and for the same period of one (1) year.7 Part of her functions as a member of the Governing
Board is to attend book fairs to establish linkages with international book publishing bodies. On September 29,
1997, she was issued by the Office of the President a travel authority to attend the Madrid International Book Fair in
Spain on October 8-12, 1997.8 Based on her itinerary of travel,9 she was paid ₱139,199.0010 as her travelling
expenses.

Unfortunately, petitioner was not able to attend the scheduled international book fair.

On February 16, 1998, Resident Auditor Rosario T. Martin advised petitioner to immediately return/refund her cash
advance considering that her trip was canceled.11 Petitioner, however, failed to do so. On July 6, 1998, she was
issued a Summary of Disallowances12 from which the balance for settlement amounted to ₱220,349.00. Despite
said notice, no action was forthcoming from the petitioner.

On September 23, 1999, Dr. Nellie R. Apolonio, then the Executive Director of the NBDB, filed with the Ombudsman
a complaint against petitioner for malversation of public funds and properties. She averred that despite the

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_147026_2009.html 1/9
9/14/2020 G.R. Nos. 147026-27

cancellation of the foreign trip, petitioner failed to liquidate or return to the NBDB her cash advance within sixty (60)
days from date of arrival, or in this case from the date of cancellation of the trip, in accordance with government
accounting and auditing rules and regulations. Dr. Apolonio further charged petitioner with violation of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 671313 for failure to file her Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

The Ombudsman found probable cause to indict petitioner for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019,14 as
amended, and recommended the filing of the corresponding information.15 It, however, dismissed for insufficiency of
evidence, the charge for violation of R.A. No. 6713.

In an Information dated February 18, 2000, petitioner was charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019
before the Sandiganbayan, to wit:

That on or about October 8, 1997, or for sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Quezon, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the aforenamed accused, a public officer, being then a member of
the governing Board of the National Book Development Board (NBDB), while in the performance of her official and
administrative functions, and acting with evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and criminally, without any justifiable cause, and despite due demand by the Resident Auditor
and the Executive Director of NBDB, fail and refuse to return and/or liquidate her cash advances intended for official
travel abroad which did not materialize, in the total amount of ₱139,199.00 as of September 23, 1999, as required
under EO No. 248 and Sec. 5 of COA Circular No. 97-002 thereby causing damage and undue injury to the
Government.

CONTRARY TO LAW.16

The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 25867 and raffled to the First Division.

Meanwhile, the Commission on Audit charged petitioner with Malversation of Public Funds, as defined and
penalized under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, for not liquidating the cash advance granted to her in
connection with her supposed trip to Spain. During the conduct of the preliminary investigation, petitioner was
required to submit her counter-affidavit but she failed to do so. The Ombudsman found probable cause to indict
petitioner for the crime charged and recommended the filing of the corresponding information against her. 17

Thus, an Information dated February 29, 2000 was filed before the Sandiganbayan, which was docketed as Criminal
Case No. 25898, and raffled to the Third Division, the accusatory portion of which reads:

That on or about and during the period from October 8, 1997 to February 16, 1999, or for sometime prior or
subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, a high ranking officer, being a member of the Governing Board of the National Book Development
Board and as such, is accountable for the public funds she received as cash advance in connection with her trip to
Spain from October 8-12, 1997, per LBP Check No. 10188 in the amount of ₱139,199.00, which trip did not
materialize, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, malverse, misappropriate, embezzle and
convert to her own personal use and benefit the aforementioned amount of ₱139,199.00, Philippine currency, to the
damage and prejudice of the government in the aforesaid amount.

CONTRARY TO LAW.18

During her arraignment in Criminal Case No. 25867, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, petitioner delivered to
the First Division the money subject of the criminal cases, which amount was deposited in a special trust account
during the pendency of the criminal cases.

Meanwhile, the Third Division set a clarificatory hearing in Criminal Case No. 25898 on May 16, 2000 in order to
determine jurisdictional issues. On June 3, 2000, petitioner filed with the same Division a Motion for Consolidation19
of Criminal Case No. 25898 with Criminal Case No. 25867, pending before the First Division. On July 6, 2000, the
People filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Admit Amended Information20 in Criminal Case No. 25898, which was
granted. Accordingly, the Amended Information dated June 28, 2000 reads as follows:

That on or about and during the period from October 8, 1997 to February 16, 1999, or for sometime prior or
subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, a high ranking officer, being a member of the Governing Board of the National Book Development
Board equated to Board Member II with a salary grade 28 and as such, is accountable for the public funds she
received as case advance in connection with her trip to Spain from October 8-12, 1997, per LBP Check No. 10188
in the amount of ₱139,199.00, which trip did not materialize, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
take, malverse, misappropriate, embezzle and convert to her own personal use and benefit the aforementioned
amount of ₱139,199.00, Philippine currency, to the damage and prejudice of the government in the aforesaid
amount.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_147026_2009.html 2/9
9/14/2020 G.R. Nos. 147026-27

CONTRARY TO LAW.21

In its Resolution dated October 5, 2000, the Third Division ordered the consolidation of Criminal Case No. 25898
with Criminal Case No. 25867. 22

On October 10, 2000, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash Information,23 averring that the Sandiganbayan has no
jurisdiction to hear Criminal Case No. 25867 as the information did not allege that she is a public official who is
classified as Grade "27" or higher. Neither did the information charge her as a co-principal, accomplice or accessory
to a public officer committing an offense under the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction. She also averred that she is not a
public officer or employee and that she belongs to the Governing Board only as a private sector representative
under R.A. No. 8047, hence, she may not be charged under R.A. No. 3019 before the Sandiganbayan or under any
statute which covers public officials. Moreover, she claimed that she does not perform public functions and is without
any administrative or political power to speak of – that she is serving the private book publishing industry by
advancing their interest as participant in the government's book development policy.

In an Order24 dated November 14, 2000, the First Division25 denied the motion to quash with the following
disquisition:

The fact that the accused does not receive any compensation in terms of salaries and allowances, if that indeed be
the case, is not the sole qualification for being in the government service or a public official. The National Book
Development Board is a statutory government agency and the persons who participated therein even if they are
from the private sector, are public officers to the extent that they are performing their duty therein as such.

Insofar as the accusation is concerned herein, it would appear that monies were advanced to the accused in her
capacity as Director of the National Book Development Board for purposes of official travel. While indeed under
ordinary circumstances a member of the board remains a private individual, still when that individual is performing
her functions as a member of the board or when that person receives benefits or when the person is supposed to
travel abroad and is given government money to effect that travel, to that extent the private sector representative is
a public official performing public functions; if only for that reason, and not even considering situation of her being in
possession of public funds even as a private individual for which she would also covered by provisions of the
Revised Penal Code, she is properly charged before this Court.

On November 15, 2000, the First Division accepted the consolidation of the criminal cases against petitioner and
scheduled her arraignment on November 17, 2000, for Criminal Case No. 25898. On said date, petitioner
manifested that she is not prepared to accept the propriety of the accusation since it refers to the same subject
matter as that covered in Criminal Case No. 25867 for which the Sandiganbayan gave her time to file a motion to
quash. On November 22, 2000, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information26 in Criminal Case No. 25898, by
invoking her right against double jeopardy. However, her motion was denied in open court. She then filed a motion
for reconsideration.

On January 17, 2001, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution27 denying petitioner’s motion with the following
disquisition:

The accused is under the jurisdiction of this Court because Sec. 4 (g) of P.D. 1606 as amended so provides, thus:

Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. – The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:

xxxx

(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities
or educational institutions or foundations;

xxxx

The offense is office-related because the money for her travel abroad was given to her because of her Directorship
in the National Book Development Board.

Furthermore, there are also allegations to hold the accused liable under Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code
which reads:

Art. 222. Officers included in the preceding provisions. – The provisions of this chapter shall apply to private
individuals who, in any capacity whatever, have charge of any insular, provincial or municipal funds, revenues, or
property and to any administrator or depository of funds or property attached , seized or deposited by public
authority, even if such property belongs to a private individual.

Likewise, the Motion to Quash the Information in Criminal Case No. 25898 on the ground of litis pendencia is denied
since in this instance, these two Informations speak of offenses under different statutes, i.e., R.A. No. 3019 and the
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_147026_2009.html 3/9
9/14/2020 G.R. Nos. 147026-27

Revised Penal Code, neither of which precludes prosecution of the other.

Petitioner hinges the present petition on the ground that the Sandiganbayan has committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction for not quashing the two informations charging her with violation of the
Anti-Graft Law and the Revised Penal Code on malversation of public funds. She advanced the following arguments
in support of her petition, to wit: first, she is not a public officer, and second, she was being charged under two (2)
informations, which is in violation of her right against double jeopardy.

A motion to quash an Information is the mode by which an accused assails the validity of a criminal complaint or
Information filed against him for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects which are apparent in the face
of the Information.28

Well-established is the rule that when a motion to quash in a criminal case is denied, the remedy is not a petition for
certiorari, but for petitioners to go to trial, without prejudice to reiterating the special defenses invoked in their motion
to quash. Remedial measures as regards interlocutory orders, such as a motion to quash, are frowned upon and
often dismissed. The evident reason for this rule is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action.29

The above general rule, however admits of several exceptions, one of which is when the court, in denying the
motion to dismiss or motion to quash, acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, then
certiorari or prohibition lies. The reason is that it would be unfair to require the defendant or accused to undergo the
ordeal and expense of a trial if the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or offense, or is not the court of
proper venue, or if the denial of the motion to dismiss or motion to quash is made with grave abuse of discretion or a
whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment. In such cases, the ordinary remedy of appeal cannot be plain and
adequate.30

To substantiate her claim, petitioner maintained that she is not a public officer and only a private sector
representative, stressing that her only function among the eleven (11) basic purposes and objectives provided for in
Section 4, R.A. No. 8047, is to obtain priority status for the book publishing industry. At the time of her
appointment to the NDBD Board, she was the President of the BSAP, a book publishers association. As such, she
could not be held liable for the crimes imputed against her, and in turn, she is outside the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.

The NBDB is the government agency mandated to develop and support the Philippine book publishing industry. It is
a statutory government agency created by R.A. No. 8047, which was enacted into law to ensure the full
development of the book publishing industry as well as for the creation of organization structures to implement the
said policy. To achieve this end, the Governing Board of the NBDB was created to supervise the implementation.
The Governing Board was vested with powers and functions, to wit:

a) assume responsibility for carrying out and implementing the policies, purposes and objectives provided for
in this Act;

b) formulate plans and programs as well as operational policies and guidelines for undertaking activities
relative to promoting book development, production and distribution as well as an incentive scheme for
individual authors and writers;

c) formulate policies, guidelines and mechanisms to ensure that editors, compilers and especially authors are
paid justly and promptly royalties due them for reproduction of their works in any form and number and for
whatever purpose;

d) conduct or contract research on the book publishing industry including monitoring, compiling and providing
data and information of book production;

e) provide a forum for interaction among private publishers, and, for the purpose, establish and maintain
liaison will all the segments of the book publishing industry;

f) ask the appropriate government authority to ensure effective implementation of the National Book
Development Plan;

g) promulgate rules and regulations for the implementation of this Act in consultation with other agencies
concerned, except for Section 9 hereof on incentives for book development, which shall be the concern of
appropriate agencies involved;

h) approve, with the concurrence of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), the annual and
supplemental budgets submitted to it by the Executive director;

i) own, lease, mortgage, encumber or otherwise real and personal property for the attainment of its purposes
and objectives;
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_147026_2009.html 4/9
9/14/2020 G.R. Nos. 147026-27

j) enter into any obligation or contract essential to the proper administration of its affairs, the conduct of its
operations or the accomplishment of its purposes and objectives;

k) receive donations, grants, legacies, devices and similar acquisitions which shall form a trust fund of the
Board to accomplish its development plans on book publishing;

l) import books or raw materials used in book publishing which are exempt from all taxes, customs duties and
other charges in behalf of persons and enterprises engaged in book publishing and its related activities duly
registered with the board;

m) promulgate rules and regulations governing the matter in which the general affairs of the Board are to be
exercised and amend, repeal, and modify such rules and regulations whenever necessary;

n) recommend to the President of the Philippines nominees for the positions of the Executive Officer and
Deputy Executive Officer of the Board;

o) adopt rules and procedures and fix the time and place for holding meetings: Provided, That at least one (1)
regular meeting shall be held monthly;

p) conduct studies, seminars, workshops, lectures, conferences, exhibits, and other related activities on book
development such as indigenous authorship, intellectual property rights, use of alternative materials for
printing, distribution and others; and

q) exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be required by the law.31

A perusal of the above powers and functions leads us to conclude that they partake of the nature of public functions.
A public office is the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for a given period, either
fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the
sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public. The individual so
invested is a public officer.32

Notwithstanding that petitioner came from the private sector to sit as a member of the NBDB, the law invested her
with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, so that the purpose of the government is achieved.
In this case, the government aimed to enhance the book publishing industry as it has a significant role in the
national development. Hence, the fact that she was appointed from the public sector and not from the other
branches or agencies of the government does not take her position outside the meaning of a public office. She was
appointed to the Governing Board in order to see to it that the purposes for which the law was enacted are
achieved. The Governing Board acts collectively and carries out its mandate as one body. The purpose of the law
for appointing members from the private sector is to ensure that they are also properly represented in the
implementation of government objectives to cultivate the book publishing industry.

Moreover, the Court is not unmindful of the definition of a public officer pursuant to the Anti-Graft Law, which
provides that a public officer includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary,
whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving compensation, even nominal, from the
government.33

Thus, pursuant to the Anti-Graft Law, one is a public officer if one has been elected or appointed to a public office.
Petitioner was appointed by the President to the Governing Board of the NDBD. Though her term is only for a year
that does not make her private person exercising a public function. The fact that she is not receiving a monthly
salary is also of no moment. Section 7, R.A. No. 8047 provides that members of the Governing Board shall receive
per diem and such allowances as may be authorized for every meeting actually attended and subject to pertinent
laws, rules and regulations. Also, under the Anti-Graft Law, the nature of one's appointment, and whether the
compensation one receives from the government is only nominal, is immaterial because the person so elected or
appointed is still considered a public officer.

On the other hand, the Revised Penal Code defines a public officer as any person who, by direct provision of the
law, popular election, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of
public functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said Government or in any of its
branches public duties as an employee, agent, or subordinate official, of any rank or classes, shall be deemed to be
a public officer.34

Where, as in this case, petitioner performs public functions in pursuance of the objectives of R.A. No. 8047, verily,
she is a public officer who takes part in the performance of public functions in the government whether as an
employee, agent, subordinate official, of any rank or classes. In fact, during her tenure, petitioner took part in the
drafting and promulgation of several rules and regulations implementing R.A. No. 8047. She was supposed to
represent the country in the canceled book fair in Spain.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_147026_2009.html 5/9
9/14/2020 G.R. Nos. 147026-27

In fine, We hold that petitioner is a public officer. The next question for the Court to resolve is whether, as a public
officer, petitioner is within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

Presently,35 the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the following:

Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. - The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:

A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, other known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
Republic Act 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 989 (Republic Act
No. 6758), specifically including:

xxxx

(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade "Grade '27'" and up under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;

(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;

(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commission, without prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution; and

(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade "Grade '27'" and higher under the Compensation
and Position Classification Act of 1989.

xxxx

Notably, the Director of Organization, Position Classification and Compensation Bureau, of the Department of
Budget and management provided the following information regarding the compensation and position classification
and/or rank equivalence of the member of the Governing Board of the NBDB, thus:

Per FY 1999 Personal Services Itemization, the Governing Board of NDBD is composed of one (1) Chairman (ex-
officio), one (1) Vice-Chairman (ex-officio), and nine (9) Members, four (4) of whom are ex-officio and the remaining
five (5) members represent the private sector. The said five members of the Board do not receive any salary and as
such their position are not classified and are not assigned any salary grade.

For purposes however of determining the rank equivalence of said positions, notwithstanding that they do not have
any salary grade assignment, the same may be equated to Board Member II, SG-28.36

Thus, based on the Amended Information in Criminal Case No. 25898, petitioner belongs to the employees
classified as SG-28, included in the phrase "all other national and local officials classified as ‘Grade 27' and higher
under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989."

Anent the issue of double jeopardy, We can not likewise give in to the contentions advanced by petitioner. She
argued that her right against double jeopardy was violated when the Sandiganbayan denied her motion to quash the
two informations filed against her. 1avvphi1

We believe otherwise. Records show that the Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 25867 and 25898 refer to offenses
penalized by different statues, R.A. No. 3019 and RPC, respectively. It is elementary that for double jeopardy to
attach, the case against the accused must have been dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon valid information sufficient in form and substance and the
accused pleaded to the charge.37 In the instant case, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the Information for violation of
the Anti-Graft Law. She was not yet arraigned in the criminal case for malversation of public funds because she had
filed a motion to quash the latter information. Double jeopardy could not, therefore, attach considering that the two
cases remain pending before the Sandiganbayan and that herein petitioner had pleaded to only one in the criminal
cases against her.

It is well settled that for a claim of double jeopardy to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) there is a
complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction; (2) the same
is filed before a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) there is a valid arraignment or plea to the charges; and (4) the
accused is convicted or acquitted or the case is otherwise dismissed or terminated without his express consent.38
The third and fourth requisites are not present in the case at bar.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_147026_2009.html 6/9
9/14/2020 G.R. Nos. 147026-27

In view of the foregoing, We hold that the present petition does not fall under the exceptions wherein the remedy of
certiorari may be resorted to after the denial of one's motion to quash the information. And even assuming that
petitioner may avail of such remedy, We still hold that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED. The questioned Resolutions and Order of the Sandiganbayan are
AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

Footnotes

1 Rollo, pp. 3-24.

2 Id. at. 26.

3 Id at 27-28.

4 Id. at 29-30.

5 "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOK PUBLISHING INDUSTRY THROUGH
THE FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A NATIONAL BOOK POLICY AND A NATIONAL BOOK
DEVELOPMENT PLAN;" records, Vol. I (Crim. Case No. 25867), pp. 101-107.

6 Records, Vol. I (Crim. Case No. 25867), p. 90.

7 Records, Vol. I (Crim. Case No. 25867), pp. 91-92.

8 Id. at 122.

9 Id. at 123.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_147026_2009.html 7/9
9/14/2020 G.R. Nos. 147026-27
10 Per Check No. 10188-AY; id. at 125.

11 Id. at 126.

12 Id. at 127.

13 Otherwise known as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees."

14 Otherwise known as the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act."

15 Resolution dated February 18, 2000; records, Vol. I (Crim. Case No. 25867), pp. 5-10.

16 Records, Vol. II (Crim. Case No. 25867), pp. 1-2.

17 Resolution dated February 29, 2000; records , Vol. I, (Crim Case No. 25898), pp. 4-8.

18 Records, Vol. I (Crim Case No. 25898), pp. 1-2.

19 Id. at 31-32.

20 Id. at 45.

21 Id. at 46.

22 Id. at 52.

23 Rollo, pp. 40-50.

24 Rollo, p. 26.

25 Composed of then Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena, Associate Justices Catalino R. Castañeda,
Jr. and Gregory S. Ong.
26 Id. at 55-58.

27 Rollo, pp. 27-28.

28 Ariel Los Baños, et al. v. Joel Pedro, G.R. No. 173588, April 22, 2009.

29 Serana v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162059, January 22, 2008, 542 SCRA 224.

30 Newsweek, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, No. L-63559, May 30, 1986, 142 SCRA 171.

31 R.A. 8047, Sec. 8; records, Vol. I (Crim. Case No. 25867), pp. 103-104.

32 F.R. Mechem, A Treatise on the Law of Public Offices and Officers, Sec. 1.

33 R.A. No. 3019, Sec. 2 (b).

34 Revised Penal Code, Art. 203.

35 On June 11, 1978, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos promulgated Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1486
which created the Sandiganbayan. The Whereas Clause of the decree aimed to attain the highest norms of
official conduct required of public officers and employees, based on the concept that public officers and
employees shall serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency and shall
remain at all times accountable to the People. On December 10, 1978, P.D. No. 1486 was amended by P.D.
No. 1606 which expanded the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Thereafter, P.D. No. 1861 amended P.D. No.
1606 on March 23, 1983, which decree further altered the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction. On March 30, 1995,
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7975 was approved, making succeeding amendments to P.D. No. 1606, which was
again amended on February 5, 1997 by R.A. No. 8249. Section 4 of which further modified the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan.

36 Records, Vol. I (Crim Case No. 25898), p. 36.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_147026_2009.html 8/9
9/14/2020 G.R. Nos. 147026-27
37 Cabo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169509, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 264.

38 Id.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_147026_2009.html 9/9