G.R. No. 168918 Case Digest

G.R. No. 168918, March 2, 2009

People, petitioner

v Hermenegildo Dumlao y Castiliano and Emilio La'o y Gonzales, respondents

Ponente: Chico-Nazario

Facts:

This is an appeal to the Sandiganbayan resolution which granted the motion to dismiss/quash of respondent Dumlao and dismissed the case against him.

On July 1991 an information was filed before the Sandiganbayan charging respondents Dumlao and others with violation of section 3 of republic act no. 3019 known as anti-graft and corrupt practices act.

The accused are members of the board of trustees of GSIS charged with unlawful entry to contract of lease-purchase with La'o private person. 

When arraigned, Dumlao pleaded not guilty, and as agreed a joint stipulation of facts and admission of exhibit was submitted to the court on January 2005

After the pre-trial, Dumlao filed a motion to dismiss/quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, that the alleged board resolution was not approved by the GSIS board of trustees because some signatures did not appear in the minutes therefore concluding that there was no qourum. And was held meritorious.

But on September 2005, people of the Philippines represented by the office of the ombudsman and thru the office of the prosecutor filed a petition for certiorari seeking the reversal and setting aside of the Sandiganbayan resolution.

Issues: (1) whether or not the court acted in accordance with law and jurisprudence when it dismissed the criminal case against dumlao and others? (2) whether or not the signatures of the majority of the GSIS board of trusteea are necessary on the minutes of the meeting to give force and effect to resolution (3) whether or not the validity of the contract is an essential element of violation of section (4) whether or not the court acted in accordance with law and jurisprudence when it resolved to archive the case against respondent La'o?

On the other hand, Dumlao's contention were the following: (1) ombudsman's petition will place him in double jeopardy (2) the Sandiganbayan could not be said to have gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction because it only followed the rule in pre-trial and decided the case on the basis of the facts stipulated in the pre-trial (3) the facts agree by the prosecution and respondents Dumlao in the pre-trial was approved by the Sandiganbayan showed that Dumlao did not commit any crime (4) continuing prosecution of Dumlao, excluding the other GSIS trustees constitutes unfair discrimination and his right to equal protection of the law

Petitioner further contended that they were denied due process because Sandiganbayan has dismissed the case after re-trial before they could present witnesses and offer exhibits.

Ruling: 

Insufficiency of evidence is not of the grounds of motion to quash. Insufficiency is ground for dismissal only after the prosecution rests its case. In this case, Sandiganbayan deprived the prosecution to present its evidence in doing so violated the rights to due process.

Sandiganbayan erred in confusing the resolution and the minutes of the meeting which allegedly approved the lease-purchase agreement. A resolution is distinct and different from the minutes of the meeting.

In the issue of double jeopardy, the court did not agree with Dumlao because the first jeopardy has not yet attached due to the premature dismissal.

In the issue of jurisdiction, in this case there was no error of judgment but a denial of due process resulting in loss of jurisdiction.

In the issue of discrimination, the court is not convinced because Dumlao was the only one left to be prosecuted because his co-conspirators are all dead.

The petition was granted.