People v. Sandiganbayan

 

People v. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 219824-25

February 12, 2019

FACTS:

                Benhur Luy, the whistle-blower, showed the list of projects and their corresponding amounts which the PDAF entails. The NBI investigated that the funds(Php9.6m) are gone through SARO(Special Allotment Release Order) and NCA(Notice of Cash Allocation) from DBM to the implementing agencies to ghost Napoles-controlled NGOs. The Congressman Constantino G. Jaraula, Mario L. Relampagos, then USEC for Operations, all of the DBM, were charged for corruption of public officials, violation of Sec. 3, par. b,e,g, and j and Sec. 4 of RA 3019 and malversation of public funds art. 217 of the RPC. The respondents claimed that PDAF Process Flow adopted by the DBM for 2007 to 2009 shows that they had no means of expediting the release of SAROs and NCAs of Jaraula. They also claimed that they had not participated in the preparation of the PDAF.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the Sandiganbayan imputed grave abuse of discretion./filing of petition for certiori is correct.

HELD:

                No. The Sandiganbayan has the authority to determine whether or not to dismiss the case. The dismissal of the Sandiganbayan of the criminal cases for lack of probable cause was a final order which finally disposed of said criminal cases insofar as herein respondents Relempagos and others are concerned. “Section 7 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Section 3 of R.A. No. 7975 provides that decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be appealable to the Court by a petition for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This is in harmony with the procedural rule that the provisions of Rules 42, 44, 45, 46 and 48 to 56 relating to the procedure in original and appealed civil cases shall also be applied to criminal cases. The Court finds that the Sandiganbayan did not err in finding that no probable cause existed to indict Relampagos, et al. for violation of Section 3( e) of R.A. No. 3019 and for malversation of public funds insofar as the funds covered by SARO No. ROCS-07-05450 is concerned. Neither do we find that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in reaching such conclusion. No hint of whimsicality, nor of gross and patent abuse of discretion as would amount to an evasion of a positive duty, or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law can be discerned on the part of the Sandiganbayan.