View full case

MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO v. JUSTICE FRANCIS GARCHITORENA

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner to set aside the Resolution dated March 3, 1993 in Criminal Case No. 16698 of the Sandiganbayan (First Division) and to declare Presiding Justice Francis Garchitorena of the Sandiganbayan disqualified from acting in said criminal case. On May 1, 1991, the petitioner was charged with violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in relation to favoring "unqualified" aliens with the benefits of the Alien Legalization Program. The petitioner previously filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with the case, but it was dismissed. The petitioner filed a motion for the inhibition of Presiding Justice Garchitorena, which was set for hearing on November 13, 1992. The Sandiganbayan also scheduled the arraignment for the same date. The petitioner moved to defer the arraignment due to the pending motion for inhibition and her intention to file a motion for a bill of particulars, but it was denied. The petitioner subsequently filed a motion for a bill of particulars, arguing that she needed the names and identities of the favored aliens in order to properly plead and prepare for trial. On November 12, 1992, the Sandiganbayan was directed to reset the arraignment and address the pending incidents. However, on December 8, 1992, the prosecution filed a motion to admit 32 Amended Informations. On March 3, 1993, Presiding Justice Garchitorena denied the motion for his disqualification, and on March 14, 1993, the Sandiganbayan admitted the 32 Amended Informations and ordered the petitioner to post bail bonds. The petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari in response.

The case involves a letter written by Presiding Justice Garchitorena of the Sandiganbayan in response to a letter from petitioner Miriam Defensor-Santiago's husband, Benigno. In his letter, Benigno criticized the Sandiganbayan for issuing a hold-departure order against Miriam without proper basis. He also questioned the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and alleged bias on the part of Presiding Justice Garchitorena. The Sandiganbayan, through Presiding Justice Garchitorena, defended its decision to issue the hold-departure order and explained that all persons facing criminal charges in court, including Miriam, have to secure permission to leave the country. Presiding Justice Garchitorena also mentioned in his letter that Miriam had been charged before the Sandiganbayan for allegedly favoring unqualified aliens with the benefits of the Alien Legalization Program. The charge was based on an Information filed against Miriam in Criminal Case No. 16698. It was alleged that Miriam, as the Commissioner of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation, willfully, unlawfully, and criminally approved the application for legalization of aliens who arrived in the Philippines after January 1, 1984, in violation of Executive Order No. 324. Miriam had attempted to leave the country without first securing the permission of the Sandiganbayan, prompting the issuance of the hold-departure order. The letter of Presiding Justice Garchitorena was written to defend the dignity and integrity of the Sandiganbayan and was not meant to prejudge the merit of the charge against Miriam. Furthermore, the Sandiganbayan sitting in three divisions with three justices in each division ensures the collegiate character of the court, thereby undermining Miriam's fear of prejudice and bias. Regarding the claim of denial of due process, Miriam argued that her constitutional rights were violated due to the delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation. However, the court explained that the delay was caused by the complexity of the issues involved and not due to unexplained inaction by the public prosecutors, as in the case of Tatad v. Sandiganbayan. The investigatory process was set in motion after the act complained of came to the attention of the Ombudsman in January 1989. The investigation was assigned to Special Prosecutor Gualberto dela Llana, then re-assigned to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon at the request of Miriam. A panel of four prosecutors handled the case and submitted a draft resolution for the filing of the charges in March 1990. The amended informations were filed on December 8, 1992, following the necessary legal processes.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the delay in filing the information against the petitioner violated her right to a speedy disposition of cases.

  2. Whether the amended informations charged an offense punishable under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.

  3. Whether the 32 amended informations charging a delito continuado against the petitioner are valid.

  4. Whether the series of criminal acts committed by the petitioner constitutes one offense or separate offenses.

  5. Whether the doctrine of delito continuado is applicable to the case.

  6. Whether the 32 Amended Informations should be consolidated into one information charging only one offense under the original case number.

  7. Whether the disqualification of Presiding Justice Francis Garchitorena should be lifted.

RULING:

  1. The delay in filing the information against the petitioner did not violate her right to a speedy disposition of cases.

  2. The amended informations charged an offense punishable under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.

  3. The 32 amended informations charging a delito continuado against the petitioner are valid.

  4. The series of criminal acts committed by the petitioner constitutes one offense. The court applied the concept of delito continuado, which treats multiple acts arising from one criminal intent or resolution as constituting only one offense. In this case, the petitioner's approval of the applications for legalization of aliens not qualified constituted a series of acts impelled by the same motive and made under the same criminal impulse.

  5. The doctrine of delito continuado is applicable to the case. The court ruled that although the concept of delito continuado is an outcrop of the Spanish Penal Code, it can be applied to crimes punished under special laws, provided that the special law does not provide otherwise. In this case, since there is no contrary provision in the law penalizing the petitioner's actions, the concept of delito continuado was deemed applicable.

  6. The Court affirmed the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan directing the consolidation of the 32 Amended Informations into one information charging only one offense under the original case number. The Court noted that the offenses were committed on the same period of time and that the approval of the application for the legalization of the stay of the 32 aliens was done by a single stroke of the pen. The prosecution also manifested that the Government suffered a single harm or injury. Thus, consolidating the charges into one offense was proper.

  7. The Court lifted the temporary restraining order issued by the Court on March 25, 1993 regarding the disqualification of Presiding Justice Francis Garchitorena.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Delay in the filing of information does not per se violate an accused's right to a speedy disposition of cases, especially when there was a reasonable cause or justification for the delay.

  • In a motion to quash, the accused hypothetically admits the allegations of fact in the information.

  • The elements of the offense defined in Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 are: (a) the accused is a public officer; (b) the accused caused undue injury to any party, including the government; and (c) the accused acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.

  • The use of the term "or" in Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 indicates that either causing undue injury to any party or giving unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference to any private party qualifies as a violation of the provision.

  • Delito continuado, also known as continued crime or continuous crime, exists when there is a plurality of acts performed during a period of time, unity of penal provision violated, and unity of criminal intent or purpose.

  • The concept of delito continuado treats a series of criminal acts arising from one criminal intent or resolution as constituting only one offense.

  • The doctrine of delito continuado can be applied to crimes punished under special laws, unless the special law provides otherwise.

  • The trend in theft cases is to follow the "single larceny" doctrine, which considers the taking of several things, whether belonging to the same or different owners, at the same time and place as constituting one larceny.

  • The doctrine of delito continuado is considered a humane rule and avoids violating the constitutional guarantee against putting a person in jeopardy twice for the same offense.

  • The consolidation of multiple charges into one offense may be allowed when the offenses were committed on the same period of time and there is a connection between the charges.