1) Javier, a private sector representative on the National Book Development Board, was charged with malversation of public funds and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. She filed a motion to quash the informations, arguing she was not a public officer and the charges violated double jeopardy protections.
2) The Sandiganbayan denied Javier's motion to quash. She filed a petition for certiorari, arguing the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion.
3) The Supreme Court ruled the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash, as Javier's role on the Board invested her with sovereign functions of
1) Javier, a private sector representative on the National Book Development Board, was charged with malversation of public funds and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. She filed a motion to quash the informations, arguing she was not a public officer and the charges violated double jeopardy protections.
2) The Sandiganbayan denied Javier's motion to quash. She filed a petition for certiorari, arguing the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion.
3) The Supreme Court ruled the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash, as Javier's role on the Board invested her with sovereign functions of
1) Javier, a private sector representative on the National Book Development Board, was charged with malversation of public funds and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. She filed a motion to quash the informations, arguing she was not a public officer and the charges violated double jeopardy protections.
2) The Sandiganbayan denied Javier's motion to quash. She filed a petition for certiorari, arguing the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion.
3) The Supreme Court ruled the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash, as Javier's role on the Board invested her with sovereign functions of
1) Javier, a private sector representative on the National Book Development Board, was charged with malversation of public funds and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. She filed a motion to quash the informations, arguing she was not a public officer and the charges violated double jeopardy protections.
2) The Sandiganbayan denied Javier's motion to quash. She filed a petition for certiorari, arguing the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion.
3) The Supreme Court ruled the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash, as Javier's role on the Board invested her with sovereign functions of
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
EFFECT OF SUSTAINING A MOTION TO QUASH petition on the ground that the Sandiganbayan has
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
9. JAVIER vs SANDIGANBAYAN lack of jurisdiction for not quashing the two FACTS: Javier was charged with malversation of informations charging her with violation of the Anti- public funds. Javier was the private sector Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Revised representative in the National Book Development Penal Code on malversation of public funds. She Board (NBDB), which was created by Republic Act advanced the following arguments in support of her (R.A.) No. 8047. R.A. No. 8047 provided for the petition, to wit: first, she is not a public officer, and creation of the NBDB, which was placed under the second, she was being charged under two (2) administration and supervision of the Office of the informations, which is in violation of her right against President. The Ombudsman found probable cause to double jeopardy. indict Javier for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt ISSUE: Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse Practices Act and recommended the filing of the of discretion for not quashing the two informations corresponding information. In an Information dated filed against Javier? February 18, 2000, Javier was charged with violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices RULING: NO. A motion to quash an Information is the Act before the Sandiganbayan. The Commission on mode by which an accused assails the validity of a Audit also charged Javier with malversation of public criminal complaint or Information filed against him for funds, as defined and penalized under Article 217 of insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects the Revised Penal Code. Thus, an Information dated which are apparent in the face of the Information. February 29, 2000 was filed before the Well-established is the rule that when a motion to Sandiganbayan. On October 10, 2000, Javier filed a quash in a criminal case is denied, the remedy is not Motion to Quash Information, averring that the a petition for certiorari, but for petitioners to go to trial, Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction to hear the case without prejudice to reiterating the special defenses as the information did not allege that she is a public invoked in their motion to quash. Remedial measures official who is classified as Grade 27 or higher, as regards interlocutory orders, such as a motion to neither did the information charge her as a co- quash, are frowned upon and often dismissed. The principal, accomplice or accessory to a public officer evident reason for this rule is to avoid multiplicity of committing an offense under the Sandiganbayans appeals in a single action .The above general rule, jurisdiction. She also averred that she is not a public however admits of several exceptions, one of which is officer or employee and that she belongs to the NBDB when the court, in denying the motion to dismiss or only as a private sector representative under R.A. No. motion to quash, acts without or in excess of 8047, hence, she may not be charged under the Anti- jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, then Graft and Corrupt Practices Act before the certiorari or prohibition lies. The reason is that it Sandiganbayan or under any statute which covers would be unfair to require the defendant or accused public officials. Moreover, she claimed that she does to undergo the ordeal and expense of a trial if the not perform public functions and is without any court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or administrative or political power to speak of, that she offense, or is not the court of proper venue, or if the is serving the private book publishing industry by denial of the motion to dismiss or motion to quash is advancing their interest as participant in the made with grave abuse of discretion or a whimsical governments book development policy. On January and capricious exercise of judgment. In such cases, 17, 2001, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution the ordinary remedy of appeal cannot be plain and denying Javier s motion. Javier filed a petition for adequate. Notwithstanding that petitioner came from certiorari before the Supreme Court. Javier hinges her 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. 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.