Case study on Fresh revolution: will this wave embrace the town

Content type

User Generated

Type

Study Guide

Uploaded By

Nffvtazragrkcreg96

Pages

Rating

FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 164015, February 26, 2009 ]

RAMON A. ALBERT, PETITIONER, VS. THE SANDIGANBAYAN, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari

[1]

of the Resolutions dated 10 February 2004

[2]

and 3 May 2004

[3]

of the Sandiganbayan.

The 10 February 2004 Resolution granted the prosecution's Motion to Admit the Amended Information. The 3 May 2004

Resolution denied the Motion For Reconsideration of petitioner Ramon A. Albert (petitioner).

The Facts

On 24 March 1999, the Special Prosecution Officer (SPO) II of the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao charged

petitioner and his co-accused, Favio D. Sayson and Arturo S. Asumbrado, before the Sandiganbayan with violation of

Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019) or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in Criminal Case No.

25231. The Information alleged:

The undersigned Special Prosecution Officer II of the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao hereby accuses RAMON

A. ALBERT, FAVIO D. SAYSON, and ARTURO S. ASUMBRADO for (sic) violation of Section 3(e) R.A. 3019, as

amended, committed as follows:

That in (sic) or about May 1990 and sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Davao, Philippines and within

the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused RAMON A. ALBERT, a public officer, being then the President of the

National Home Mortgage and Finance Corporation, occupying the said position with a salary grade above 27, while in the

performance of his official function, committing the offense in relation to his office, taking advantage of his official

position, conspiring and confederating with accused FAVIO D. SAYSON, then the Project Director of CODE Foundation

Inc. and accused ARTURO S. ASUMBRADO, then the President of the Buhangin Residents and Employees Association

for Development, Inc., acting with evident bad faith and manifest partiality and or gross neglect of duty, did then and

there willfully, unlawfully and criminally cause undue injury to the government and public interest, enter and make it

appear in Tax Declaration Nos. D-3-1-7691 and D-3-1-7692 that two parcels of real property particularly described in the

Certificate of Titles Nos. T-151920 and T-151921 are residential lands which Tax Declarations accused submitted to the

NHMFC when in truth and in fact, as accused well knew, the two pieces of real property covered by Certificate of Titles

Nos. T-151920 and T-151921 are agricultural land, and by reason of accused's misrepresentation, the NHMFC released

the amount of P4,535,400.00 which is higher than the loanable amount the land could command being agricultural, thus

causing undue injury to the government.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

[4]

On 26 March 1999, a Hold Departure Order was issued by the Sandiganbayan against petitioner and his co-accused.

On 25 May 1999, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss Criminal Case No. 25231 on the following grounds: (1) the accused

(petitioner) was denied due process of law; (2) the Office of the Ombudsman did not acquire jurisdiction over the person

of the accused; (3) the constitutional rights of the accused to a speedy disposition of cases and to a speedy trial were

violated; and (4) the resolution dated 26 February 1999 finding the accused guilty of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019

is not supported by evidence.

[5]

On 18 December 2000, pending the resolution of the Motion to Dismiss, petitioner filed a Motion to Lift Hold Departure

Order and to be Allowed to Travel. The prosecution did not object to the latter motion on the condition that petitioner

would be "provisionally" arraigned.

[6]

On 12 March 2001, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to Amend Motion to Lift

Hold Departure Order and to be Allowed to Travel. The following day, or on 13 March 2001, the Sandiganbayan

arraigned petitioner who entered a plea of "not guilty." In the Resolution dated 16 April 2001, the Sandiganbayan granted

petitioner's Urgent Motion to Amend Motion to Lift Hold Departure Order and to be Allowed to Travel.

On 26 November 2001, the Sandiganbayan denied petitioner's Motion to Dismiss and ordered the prosecution to conduct a

reinvestigation of the case with respect to petitioner. In a Memorandum dated 6 January 2003, the SPO who conducted the

reinvestigation recommended to the Ombudsman that the indictment against petitioner be reversed for lack of probable

cause. However, the Ombudsman, in an Order dated 10 March 2003, disapproved the Memorandum and directed the

Office of the Special Prosecutor to proceed with the prosecution of the criminal case. Petitioner filed a Motion for

Reconsideration of the Order of the Ombudsman.

In a Resolution promulgated on 16 May 2003, the Sandiganbayan scheduled the arraignment of petitioner on 24 July

2003. However, in view of the pending motion for reconsideration of the order of the Ombudsman, the arraignment was

reset to 2 October 2003.

In a Manifestation dated 24 September 2003, the SPO informed the Sandiganbayan of the Ombudsman's denial of

petitioner's motion for reconsideration. On even date, the prosecution filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Admit Amended

Information. During the 2 October 2003 hearing, this ex-parte motion was withdrawn by the prosecution with the

intention of filing a Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Information. The scheduled arraignment of petitioner was reset

to 1 December 2003.

[7]

On 7 October 2003, the prosecution filed a Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Information. The Amended Information

reads:

The undersigned Special Prosecution Officer I of the Office of Special Prosecutor, hereby accuses RAMON A. ALBERT,

FAVIO D. SAYSON, and ARTURO S. ASUMBRADO for (sic) violation of Section 3(e) R.A. 3019, as amended,

committed as follows:

That in (sic) or about May 1990 and sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Davao, Philippines and within

the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused RAMON A. ALBERT, a public officer, being then the President of the

National Home Mortgage and Finance Corporation, occupying the said position with a salary grade above 27, while in the

performance of his official function, committing the offense in relation to his office, taking advantage of his official

position, conspiring and confederating with accused FAVIO D. SAYSON, then the Project Director of CODE Foundation

Inc. and accused ARTURO S. ASUMBRADO, then the President of the Buhangin Residents and Employees Association

for Development, Inc., acting with evident bad faith and manifest partiality and/or gross inexcusable negligence, did

then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally cause undue injury to the government and public interest, enter and

make it appear in Tax Declaration Nos. D-3-1-7691 and D-3-1-7692 that two parcels of real property particularly

described in the Certificate of Titles Nos. T-151920 and T-151921 are residential lands which Tax Declarations accused

submitted to the NHMFC when in truth and in fact, as accused well knew, the two pieces of real property covered by

Certificate of Titles Nos. T-151920 and T-151921 are agricultural land, and by reason of accused's misrepresentation, the

NHMFC released the amount of P4,535,400.00 which is higher than the loanable amount the land could command being

agricultural, thus causing undue injury to the government.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

[8]

Petitioner opposed the motion, alleging that the amendment made on the information is substantial and, therefore, not

allowed after arraignment.

The Ruling of the Sandiganbayan

In its Resolution of 10 February 2004,

[9]

the Sandiganbayan granted the prosecution's Motion to Admit Amended

Information. At the outset, the Sandiganbayan explained that "gross neglect of duty" which falls under Section 3(f) of RA

3019 is different from "gross inexcusable negligence" under Section 3(e), and held thus:

In an information alleging gross neglect of duty, it is not a requirement that such neglect or refusal causes undue injury

compared to an information alleging gross inexcusable negligence where undue injury is a constitutive element. A change

to this effect constitutes substantial amendment considering that the possible defense of the accused may divert from the

one originally intended.

It may be considered however, that there are three modes by which the offense for Violation of Section 3(e) may be

committed in any of the following:

1. Through evident bad faith;

End of Preview - Want to read all 74 pages?

Access Now

Unformatted Attachment Preview

FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. 164015, February 26, 2009 ] RAMON A. ALBERT, PETITIONER, VS. THE SANDIGANBAYAN, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N CARPIO, J.: The Case This is a petition for certiorari[1] of the Resolutions dated 10 February 2004[2] and 3 May 2004[3] of the Sandiganbayan. The 10 February 2004 Resolution granted the prosecution's Motion to Admit the Amended Information. The 3 May 2004 Resolution denied the Motion For Reconsideration of petitioner Ramon A. Albert (petitioner). The Facts On 24 March 1999, the Special Prosecution Officer (SPO) II of the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao charged petitioner and his co-accused, Favio D. Sayson and Arturo S. Asumbrado, before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019) or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in Criminal Case No. 25231. The Information alleged: The undersigned Special Prosecution Officer II of the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao hereby accuses RAMON A. ALBERT, FAVIO D. SAYSON, and ARTURO S. ASUMBRADO for (sic) violation of Section 3(e) R.A. 3019, as amended, committed as follows: That in (sic) or about May 1990 and sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Davao, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused RAMON A. ALBERT, a public officer, being then the President of the National Home Mortgage and Finance Corporation, occupying the said position with a salary grade above 27, while ...
Purchase document to see full attachment