View full case

HERMINIO T. DISINI v. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

The Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over the criminal action involving petitioner Herminio T. Disini. Disini filed a motion to quash the criminal actions against him, but it was denied by the Sandiganbayan. Disini voluntarily submitted himself for arraignment and entered a plea of not guilty to both charges. Disini filed a special civil action for certiorari against the Sandiganbayan, arguing that it had no jurisdiction over the offenses charged and made several other arguments related to jurisdiction, prescription, sufficiency of the informations, and the denial of his motion to quash. The records of the criminal case were transmitted to the Ombudsman for appropriate action. The Court denied the petition for certiorari. The PCGG conducted a preliminary investigation of the criminal complaints against Disini, but it was found that the PCGG could not impartially conduct the investigation, so it was prohibited from doing so and the records were forwarded to the Ombudsman instead. Disini challenged the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over the offenses charged and argued that the cases should have been filed by the PCGG instead of the Ombudsman. The Court held that the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the cases and that the Office of the Ombudsman had the authority to investigate and prosecute them.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the cases filed against Disini, a private individual.

  2. Whether the crimes charged against Disini are covered by the qualifying clause found in Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249.

  3. Whether the private individual can be charged and tried alongside public officials in cases involving offenses committed in relation to their office.

  4. Whether the offenses charged in the informations have already prescribed.

  5. When did the prescriptive period for the crime begin to run?

  6. Was the prescriptive period effectively interrupted?

  7. Are the informations sufficient in form and substance?

  8. Whether or not the informations in Criminal Case No. 28001 and Criminal Case No. 28002 have complied with the requirements of Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court.

  9. Whether or not the allegations in the information for corruption of public officials and violation of Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019 are sufficient to establish the elements of the offenses.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the cases filed against Disini. The authority of the PCGG to recover ill-gotten wealth covered not only public officials but also private individuals who were close associates of President Marcos. The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is not limited to public officials but also covers private individuals charged as co-principals, accomplices, or accessories with public officers.

  2. No, the qualifying clause found in Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 does not apply to the crimes charged against Disini. The clause only applies to violations of specific acts listed in R.A. No. 8249, which are not the crimes charged in this case.

  3. The qualifying clause in the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act clearly limits the criminal liability to public officials occupying positions classified as Grade 27 or higher. It does not extend to private individuals. Therefore, the private individual can be charged and tried alongside public officials in cases involving offenses committed in relation to their office.

  4. The prescriptive period for the offenses charged is 15 years for the crime of corruption of public officials and 10 years for the violation of Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019. Prescription starts to run from the day the crime is discovered or from the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. The prescriptive period is interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person and begins to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting double jeopardy.

  5. The prescriptive period for the crime did not begin to run from the date of the contracts awarded for the PNPP Project in 1974. The prescriptive period began to run from the discovery of the unlawful acts or transactions through the PCGG's exhaustive investigation in 1992. The court reasoned that during the Marcos regime, it was well-nigh impossible for the State to have known of the crimes committed due to the alleged connivance and conspiracy among involved public officials and the beneficiaries of the loans. Therefore, since the criminal complaints were filed in 1997, only five years had elapsed, and prescription has not yet set in.

  6. The filing of the criminal complaints in the Office of the Ombudsman on April 8, 1991, effectively interrupted the running of the prescriptive period. The court cited the ruling in Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department of Justice, which held that the institution of proceedings for preliminary investigation against the accused interrupts the prescriptive period. It further explained that any kind of investigative proceeding instituted against the guilty person, which may ultimately lead to his prosecution, is sufficient to toll prescription.

  7. The informations filed were sufficient in form and substance. The court emphasized that a complaint or information must state every single fact necessary to constitute the offense charged. The fundamental test to determine the sufficiency is whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, will establish the essential elements of the offense as defined in the law.

  8. The Court ruled that:

  9. The informations in Criminal Case No. 28001 and Criminal Case No. 28002 have sufficiently complied with the requirements of Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court.

  10. The allegations in the information for corruption of public officials and violation of Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019 are sufficient to establish the elements of the offenses.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over cases involving public officials and employees, as well as private individuals charged with offenses committed in relation to their office.

  • The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is not limited to public officials but also covers private individuals charged as co-principals, accomplices, or accessories with public officers.

  • The qualifying clause in Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 applies only to specific offenses listed in the law and does not apply to other offenses or felonies.

  • The qualifying clause in the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act limits criminal liability to public officials occupying positions classified as Grade 27 or higher.

  • Prescription for crimes punishable by the Revised Penal Code starts to run from the day the crime is discovered, while prescription for offenses punishable by R.A. No. 3019 starts to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law or from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings. Prescription is interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person and begins to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting double jeopardy.

  • The sufficiency of a complaint or information is determined by whether it states the name of the accused, the designation of the offense, the acts or omissions 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 there are multiple offenders, all of them should be included in the complaint or information. (Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court)

  • The elements of corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code are: (a) making offers or promises, or giving gifts or presents to a public officer; and (b) making such offers or promises, or giving gifts or presents to a public officer under circumstances that will make the public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery.

  • The elements of the offense under Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019 are: (a) having family or close personal relation with a public official; (b) capitalizing or exploiting or taking advantage of such relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any present, gift, material, or pecuniary advantage from any person having some business, transaction, application, request, or contract with the government; and (c) the public official with whom the offender has a relation needs to intervene in the business transaction, application, request, or contract with the government.