530 Phil. 773
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
The modus operandi in the buying of the lots was to cover the same transactions with two deeds of sale. One deed of sale would be signed only by the seller or sellers (unilateral deed). Another deed of sale would be signed by the seller or seller and the buyer, AFP-RSBS (bilateral deed).The Initial Report of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, which was cited by the Feliciano Commission in its Report to the President of the Philippines, included the following discussion:
The devious gimmicking was uncovered by your Committee which also found out that the buying prices stated in the unilateral deeds did not match those stated in the bilateral deeds. To borrow a word from lawyers, the "consideration" (i.e., prices) in the unilateral deeds of sale and the bilateral deeds of sale did not tally even if they covered the same transaction.
Without exception, the deed(s) signed by the seller(s) only (unilateral deeds) were the one registered with the registrar (sic) of deeds. These Unilateral Deeds of Sale recorded lower consideration paid by the System to the buyer(s) than those stated in the Bilateral Deeds. The motivation was obviously to evade payment of the correct taxes to the government and save money for the seller(s), broker(s) and who knows, probably even for the kickbacks going to certain officials of RSBS, the buyer.x x x x
The bilateral deeds were kept in the dark files [of] the System over the years. They were uncovered only recently as a result of your Committee's investigation. Your Committee submits that the reason why the bilateral deeds were kept in the vaults of the System was to justify the huge lot payments made by the System just in case any soldier-member of RSBS would be bold or curious enough to inquire about the matter directly with the System. The curious soldier would then be shown the bilateral deed to impress upon him/her that indeed the System has spent huge amounts for the purchase of the lots in question.
Until the investigation uncovered the anomaly, the matter of the two sets of documents covering the purchases of the same parcels of land made by the System were, like the Clinton-Lewinsky trysts, kept from the prying eyes officials of the System but so unfair because the public continues to shoulder, in behalf of the RSBS, the payments for the pension and retirement benefits of the soldiers." (Emphasis supplied)
Essentially, the Blue Ribbon Committee found that the real estate purchases by RSBS were uniformly documented, by two (2) sets of instruments: Firstly, a unilateral covering the same piece of land, executed both by the seller and by RSBS as buyer. The price stated in the second bilateral instrument was invariably much higher than the price reflected in the unilateral deed of sale. The discrepancies between the purchase price booked by RSBS and the purchase price reflected in the unilateral deed of sale actually registered in the relevant Registry of Deeds, totaled about seven hundred three million pesos (P703 Million). The two sets of purchase price figures obviously could not both be correct at the same time. Either the purchase price booked and paid out by RSBS was the true purchase price of the land involved, in which case RSBS had obviously assisted or abetted the seller in grossly understating the capital gains realized by him and in defrauding the National treasury; or the purchase price in the unilateral deed of sale was the consideration actually received by the seller from RSBS, in which case, the buyer-RSBS had grossly overpaid, with the differential, in the belief of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, going into the pockets of RSBS officials. A third possibility was that the differential between the purchase price booked and paid by the buyer-RSBS and the selling price admitted by the seller of the land, had been shared by the buyer and seller in some undisclosed ratio.[2]Pursuant to the recommendation of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to "prosecute and/or cause the prosecution of Gen. Jose Ramiscal Jr. (Ret), past AFP-RSBS President, who had signed the unregistered deeds of sale covering the acquisition of certain parcels of land," Ombudsman Investigators Ricardo Sullano, Rodil Buenaventura and Anatolio Alejandrino of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military conducted a fact-finding investigation. They executed a Joint Affidavit-Complaint,[3] stating that based on their findings, the following may be charged with falsification of public documents and violation of Section 3(e) and (g) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019: petitioner B/Gen. Jose Ramiscal, Jr., former AFP-RSBS president; Atty. Meinrado Enrique Bello, Head of the AFP-RSBS Legal Department in charge of Land Acquisition; Capt. Perfecto Enrique Quilicot, AFP-RSBS Project Officer, Tanauan, Batangas, Land Acquisition; and Notaries Public Alfredo Nasser and Manuel Satuito.
We have also noted that in all the 148 transactions of lot acquisition, the Bilateral Deeds of Sale never bore the marks/annotations of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Register of Deeds of Tanauan, Batangas, as would always appear, if they were used as basis for transfer of title. These Bilateral Deeds of Sale were attached to the payment vouchers to justify the payment of the much higher price considerations of the acquired lots, yet, no one of the respondents and the concerned AFP-RSBS officials and employees questioned the fact that the Bilateral Deeds of Sale never bore the marks and annotations of the Bureau of Internal Revenue indicative that the proper taxes have been paid nor that of the Register of Deeds of Tanauan, Batangas particularly the assigned Entry Number and the date of said entry as reflected in its Primary Entry Book.The panel opined that the AFP-RSBS funds used to purchase the parcels of land were trust funds and for administration purposes.[8] Moreover, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 361, the charter of the AFP-RSBS, intended to create a trust fund for the specific purpose of benefiting the members of the armed forces, hence contributions thereto were compulsory. Since soldiers and military personnel rely on the administration of the AFP-RSBS for their retirement, pension and separation benefits, petitioner and his co-officers occupy positions of trust, with obligations and responsibilities akin to those imposed on directors and officers of a corporation; and considering that the responsible officers are not mere directors but trustees, there is all the more reason to apply the fiduciary relationship principle in this case.
From the concerted silence and inaction of the respondents on the glaring irregularities attendant to the transaction, we can draw the conclusion that these officers of the AFP-RSBS who passed upon the Disbursement Voucher and the Status Transaction Forms were aware of the forgeries and the result thereof. All the respondents were acting under a common design and purpose to give a semblance of regularity to the acquisition of the subject one hundred forty eight (148) lots at a price very much higher than what was actually paid to the individual lot owners. The element of conspiracy was therefore present.[7]
On September 27, 2004, the Panel of Prosecutors issued a Memorandum[10] to the Ombudsman recommending that the motion be denied, which the latter duly approved.
- RESPONDENT RAMISCAL'S PARTICIPATION IN THE SUBJECT SALE TRANSACTIONS, WHICH WERE DULY APPROVED BY THE RSBS BOARD, WAS PURELY MINISTERIAL AS PART OF HIS LIMITED FUNCTIONS AS PRESIDENT OF RSBS.
- THE CONSPIRACY THEORY LINKING RESPONDENT RAMISCAL TO THE CHARGES IS DEVOID OF FACTUAL AND/OR LEGAL BASIS. IN FACT, THE MEMORANDUM FAILED TO SHOW, AS THERE IS NONE (SIC) ANY OVERT ACT OF CONSPIRACY COMMITTED BY RESPONDENT RAMISCAL.
- IN ANY EVENT, THE CHARGES OF FALSIFICATION BASED ON THE BILATERAL DEEDS HAVE NO LEGAL LEG TO STAND ON AS AGAINST RESPONDENT RAMISCAL.
- MORE THAN THAT, THE CHARGES OF ESTAFA AND VIOLATION OF SECTION 3(E) R.A. 3019 HAVE NO FACTUAL AND/OR LEGAL BASES INASMUCH AS THE AMOUNTS PAID BY AFP-RSBS TO THE VENDORS ARE THOSE THAT WERE INDICATED IN THE BILATERAL DEEDS OF SALE, HENCE, NO UNWARRANTED BENEFITS WERE AFFORDED THE SELLERS NOR DID THE [AFP-RSBS] AND THE GOVERNMENT SUFFER UNDUE INJURY INCIDENT THERETO.[9]
That on April 23, 1997 and sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the Province of Batangas and Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused public officers, namely: Brigadier General Jose Servando Ramiscal, Jr., a high-ranking public official, being then the President of the Armed Forces of the Philippines-Retirement, Separation and Benefit System (AFP-RSBS); Atty. Meinrado Enrique A. Bello, Head of Legal Division; Atty. Manuel Se Satuito, Chief of Documentation, Legal Division; Captain Perfecto O. Quilicot, Jr., Project Officer, and certain John and John Does, also of the AFP-RSBS, a government entity, being a government owned or controlled corporation, while in the performance of their official functions and committing the offense in relation to their office, acting with evident bad faith, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with private individuals John Does and Jane Does, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally cause undue injury to AFP-RSBS and its members by purchasing a parcel of land covering an area of seven thousand five hundred eighty-two square meters (7,582 sq. m.), more or less, situated at Tanauan, Batangas, registered in the name of Marianito V. Plaza, Glicerio V. Plaza and Petra Maunahan and covered by OCT-11835 and TCT 65973 of the Registry of Deeds of Tanauan, Batangas, under a bilateral Deed of Absoute Sale dated April 23, 1997, making it appear therein that the afore-described real property was sold by the said owners and purchased by the AFP-RSBS, represented by accused BGen. Jose Servando Ramiscal, Jr., for the amount of ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY-ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR PESOS (P1,531,564.00), Philippine Currency, paid under AFP-RSBS General Voucher No. 61789 dated May 28, 1997 with corresponding Philippine National Bank Check No. 72789 dated June 3, 1997, when in truth and in fact, accused knew fully well that the true and real consideration thereof is only TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY PESOS (P227,460.00), Philippine Currency, as correctly indicated in a unilateral Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 14, 1997 executed by the said owners, thereby resulting to an overprice of ONE MILLION THREE HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FOUR PESOS (P1,304,104.00) to the damage and prejudice of AFP-RSBS and its members.The other, for estafa thru falsification of public documents, was docketed as Criminal Case No. 28023. The accusatory portion reads:
CONTRARY TO LAW.[12]
That on April 23, 1997 and sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the Province of Batangas and Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused public officers, namely: Brigadier General Jose Servando Ramiscal, Jr., a high ranking public official, being then the President of the Armed Forces of the Philippines-Retirement Separation and Benefit System (AFP-RSBS); Atty. Meinrado Enrique A. Bello, Head of Legal Division; Atty. Manuel Se Satuito, Chief of Documentation, Legal Division; Captain Perfecto O. Quilicot, Jr., Project Officer, and certain John and Jane Does, also of the AFP-RSBS, a government entity, being a government owned or controlled corporation, while in the performance of their official functions and committing the offense in relation to their office, acting with unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with private individuals John Does and Jane Does, and with intent to defraud the AFP-RSBS and its members, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify or cause to be falsified a bilateral Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 23, 1997 covering seven thousand five hundred eighty-two square meters (7,582 sq. m.), more or less, of real property situated at Tanauan, Batangas, registered in the name of Marianito V. Plaza, Glicerio V. Plaza and Petra Maunahan and covered by OCT-11835 and TCT 65973 of the Registry of Deeds of Tanauan, Batangas, by making it appear therein that the aforedescribed real property was sold by the said owners and purchased by the AFP-RSBS, represented by accused BGen. Jose Servando Ramiscal, Jr., for the overpriced amount of ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY-ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR PESOS (P1,531,564.00), Philippine Currency, from its funds held by the accused AFP-RSBS officials in trust and for administration, when in truth and in fact, accused knew fully well that the true and real consideration thereof is only TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY PESOS (P227,460.00), Philippine Currency, as correctly indicated in a unilateral Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 14, 1997 executed by the said owners, and thereafter, to facilitate the payment of the said overpriced amount by the AFP-RSBS, the accused used the said falsified bilateral Deed of Absolute Sale as supporting document, among others, to the AFP-RSBS General Voucher No. 61789 dated May 28, 1997, and relying on said fraudulent acts, AFP-RSBS released the amount of ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY-ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR PESOS (P1,531,564.00) by way of Philippine National Bank Check No. 72789 dated June 3, 1997, which amount included the overprice of ONE MILLION THREE HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FOUR PESOS (P1,304,104.00) and which the accused subsequently misappropriated and converted to their personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the AFP-RSBS and its members.Raffled to the First Division of the anti-graft court were two other cases docketed as Criminal Case No. 28026[14] for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, and Criminal Case No. 28027[15] for estafa through falsification of public documents. Criminal Case No. 28028[16] for violation of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019 and Criminal Case No. 28029[17] for estafa through falsification of public documents were raffled to the Second Division, while Criminal Case No. 28021[18] for estafa through falsification of public documents was raffled to the Third Division. Criminal Case No. 28024[19] for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Criminal Case No. 28025[20] for estafa through falsification of public documents were raffled to the Fifth Division.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[13]
On June 2, 2005, the Sandiganbayan resolved to deny the motion, holding that contrary to petitioner's claim, it had jurisdiction over the crimes charged.[27] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied on August 17, 2005.[28] Petitioner then posted bail for his provisional liberty.
- This Court has no jurisdiction over the offenses charged in both Informations;
- In Criminal Case No. 28023 (estafa through falsification), the facts charged being an essential part of the continuing crime of Estafa separately charged in Criminal Cases Nos. 28021, 28025, 28027 and 28029, pending in the 3rd, 1st, 5th and 2nd divisions, respectively, only one Information must be filed for all these cases including those covered by the OSP memorandum dated June 15, 2004; and,
- In Criminal Case No. 20822 (violation of RA No. 3019), the said case is abated by Criminal Case No. 20823 (Estafa through falsification) because the very facts alleged in the former are also the very facts alleged in the latter.[26]
Petitioner insists that, in finding probable cause against him for estafa through falsification of public document and violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, as it relied solely on the Memorandum of the investigation panel of Ombudsman Prosecutors. He posits that it behooved the anti-graft court to review the Ombudsman's findings and scrutinize the evidence, the affidavits on record, including the transcript of stenographic notes. As gleaned from the Joint Resolution dated March 30, 2001, the initial finding of the Ombudsman Prosecutors was that there was no probable cause to charge him for the acts complained of, in the light of the Court's ruling in the Arias case. He asserts that there was no evidence of bad faith on his part relative to the deeds of sale subject of the Informations filed against him. He insists that based on the Joint Resolution, and even the report of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, he had no part whatsoever in the commission of the crimes charged. The disparity of the prices of the properties in the bilateral deeds of sale, vis-à-vis the unilateral deeds of sale, do not support the finding of probable cause against him made by the investigating panel of Ombudsman Prosecutors. Petitioner asserts that there is no evidence on record that he conspired with the other accused in the commission of the crimes charged.
- THE RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK AND/OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN SUSTAINING THE OMBUDSMAN'S FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE COMMISSION OF ONE HUNDRED FORTY EIGHT (148) COUNTS OF ESTAFA THRU FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND ANOTHER ONE HUNDRED FORTY EIGHT (148) COUNTS OF VIOLATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019 AND IN NOT DISMISSING THE INFORMATIONS.
- THE RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK AND/OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN NOT QUASHING THE INFORMATIONS AND IN NOT DISMISSING THE CASES NOTWITHSTANDING THAT IT HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION.
- THE RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK AND/OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN NOT QUASHING THE INFORMATION IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 28023 (ESTAFA THROUGH FALSIFICATION), NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE FACTS CHARGED THEREIN WERE AN ESSENTIAL PART OF ONE CONTINUING CRIME OF ESTAFA SEPARATELY CHARGED IN CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 28021, 28025, 28027 AND 28029, PENDING IN THE THIRD, FIRST, FIFTH AND SECOND DIVISIONS OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, RESPECTIVELY, CONSIDERING THAT BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS ADDUCED BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR OBVIOUS WANT OF RELIABLE EVIDENCE, ONLY ONE INFORMATION FOR ESTAFA SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED FOR ALL THESE CASES INCLUDING THE REMAINING ONE HUNDRED FORTY THREE (143) COUNTS COVERED BY THE OSP MEMORANDUM DATED JUNE 15, 2004, ANNEX T;
- THE RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK AND/OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN NOT QUASHING THE INFORMATION IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 20822 (VIOLATION OF RA NO. 3019) NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE SAID CASE WAS ABATED BY CRIMINAL CASE NO. 20823 (ESTAFA THROUGH FALSIFICATION) BECAUSE THE VERY FACTS ALLEGED IN THE FORMER WERE ALSO THE VERY FACTS ALLEGED IN THE LATTER, THUS VIOLATING THE RULE ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY.[30]
In this case, however, petitioner failed to establish that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in finding probable cause to charge him with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and for estafa through falsification of a public document.
- When necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
- When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions;
- When there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice;
- When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;
- Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation;
- When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
- Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
- Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
- Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance;
- When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied.[36]
[1] While accused Ramiscal is correct in stating that this Court, in determining the existence of probable cause for the issuance of the warrant of arrest against the accused, had evaluated the resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman and its supporting documents, he is, however, wrong in presuming that such process failed to consider the evidence the accused adduced during preliminary investigation. It should be noted that the supporting documents submitted by the Office of the Ombudsman to this Court included, among others, the counter-affidavits submitted by the accused at the preliminary investigation. Parenthetically, there is no need, and the rules do not require this Court, to enumerate in detail what were the supporting documents it considered in determining the existence of probable cause for the issuance of the warrant of arrest because the same are matters of record that the parties can easily verify.[38]We agree with the Sandiganbayan's ruling that the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure do not require cases to be set for hearing to determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of the accused before any warrant may be issued. Section 6, Rule 112 mandates the judge to personally evaluate the resolution of the Prosecutor (in this case, the Ombudsman) and its supporting evidence, and if he/she finds probable cause, a warrant of arrest or commitment order may be issued within 10 days from the filing of the complaint or Information; in case the Judge doubts the existence of probable cause, the prosecutor may be ordered to present additional evidence within five (5) days from notice. The provision reads in full:
SEC. 6. When warrant of arrest may issue. – (a) By the Regional Trial Court. – Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused has already been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who conducted the preliminary investigation or when the complaint or information was filed pursuant to section 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint of information.[39]The periods provided in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure are mandatory, and as such, the judge must determine the presence or absence of probable cause within such periods. The Sandiganbayan's determination of probable cause is made ex parte and is summary in nature, not adversarial. The Judge should not be stymied and distracted from his determination of probable cause by needless motions for determination of probable cause filed by the accused.
In the first place, the question of the number of criminal charges that must be instituted against a criminal respondent (whether one count or multiple counts of the same offense) is one addressed to the sound discretion of the prosecution service. It is enough, as this Court has already ruled, that the informations filed in these cases are based on facts establishing probable cause for the offenses charged. This Court will not compel the Office of the Ombudsman to file only one information for Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents when its preliminary investigation established the commission of several counts thereof as such action on the part of this Court would constitute undue interference with the Office of the Ombudsman's control over the prosecution of these cases.When required to comment on the motion of petitioner and his co- accused for a consolidation of the charges filed against them before the Sandiganbayan, the Special Prosecutor objected thereto, insisting that there were as many crimes committed by the accused as there were sales contracts forged by them.
In the second place, this Court is not persuaded that what is involved in these cases is a continuous crime, that is to say, a single crime consisting of a series of acts arising from a single criminal resolution or intent not susceptible of division, with each act in that series being merely the partial execution of a single delict. On the contrary, the Court is of the view that what is involved herein are several completed and distinct purported criminal acts which should be prosecuted as multiple counts of the same type of offense. Thus, as correctly perceived by the prosecution, there are as many alleged offenses as there are alleged anomalous transactions involved in these cases.[44]
If, as petitioners seem to apprehend, the adverse actions of two lower courts could create a scenario of multiple prosecutions for the same offense or, more candidly expressed, of double jeopardy, then this is neither the procedural stage nor the proper occasion to pass upon that possibility. For, squarely imputable to petitioners is the evident lack of factual basis for and a grossly defective presentation of that issue for this Court to rule thereon in this proceeding and at this time.[48]It must be stressed that our disposition of the matters in the present recourse will not foreclose petitioner's right to ventilate the same in the Sandiganbayan, for as declared in Iligan:
However, this observation would not foreclose relief to petitioners if at the trial of this case the evidence presented and the developments therein suffice to establish the supervening fact that indeed there could possibly be a breach of the rule of double jeopardy. Under Section 8 of Rule 117, they can still hereafter raise that defense of non bis in idem, provided that they can lay the evidentiary bases therefor and refute from the standpoint of substantive penal law what was earlier said on the nature and the non-identity of the several crimes of Estafa involved which, to repeat, we pronounced purely on the bases of existing records sans the benefit of any evidentiary fact since none has been adduced.[49]On the last issue, we agree with the contention of respondents that the crimes committed by public officers and employees in relation to their offices defined and penalized under the Anti-Graft Law do not exclude prosecution for felonies defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code and vice versa. Section 3 of R.A. No. 3019 reads:
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.– In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful: x x x (Emphasis supplied)It is clear then that one may be charged of violation of R.A. No. 3019 in addition to a felony under the Revised Penal Code for the same delictual act, that is, either concurrently or subsequent to being charged with a felony under the Code.
SEC. 5. When warrant of arrest may issue.—[40] G.R. No. 141951, August 12, 2003, 408 SCRA 672.
(a) By the Regional Trial Court. — Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order when the complaint or information was filed pursuant to section 6 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint or information.
Rule 1, Section 2, of the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan provides:
The Rules of Court, resolutions, circulars, and other issuances promulgated by the Supreme Court relating to or affecting the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals, insofar as applicable, shall govern all actions and proceedings filed with the Sandiganbayan.
- Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:
[43] The pertinent portion reads "[o]ther offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crime committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) of this section in relation to their office."(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or-controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations.