Posted by: Ana R. Bonita on December 4, 2018
FACTS:
Susana Realty, Incorporated (SRI for brevity) is the registered owner of two (2) parcels of land located at Noveleta, Cavite. These parcels of land are adjacent to the sea and over time portions thereof were submerged by sea water.
Mayor Dionisio Torres of Noveleta, Cavite caused the leveling and reclamation of the submerged portion of SRI's property for the relocation of displaced squatters from Tirona, Cavite who were living along river banks and esteros.
SRI filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court for prohibition with a plea for injunctive relief against the Mayor, the Municipal Building Official and Municipal Engineer Enrico Alvarez to enjoin them from reclaiming and leveling the property and for damages and attorney's fees.
Later, SRI filed with the Ombudsman a criminal complaint against Torres and Alvarez for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). After due preliminary investigation, the Ombudsman found probable cause against the two for violation of said law. Thus, filed with the Sandiganbayan an Information for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019.
In a separate petition, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cavite City a complaint against SRI and the Register of Deeds of Cavite for the reversion of the subject properties issued in favor of SRI. The Republic alleged inter alia that said property had been ascertained by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) as part of the Manila Bay per Classification Map 2736. Hence, it formed part of the inalienable mass of the public domain owned by the State.
In the meantime, negotiations for an amicable settlement ensued between Torres and SRI. However, no settlement materialized between the parties.
Thus, Torres and Alvarez filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a motion for reinvestigation but the Ombudsman issued a Resolution denying said motion. Earlier, Torres and Alvarez filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion for the suspension of the proceedings in said criminal case on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question in a civil case. However, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying the motion for suspension of the proceedings. Upon receipt of said resolution, Torres and Alvarez filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion for a reconsideration thereof but then again, the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution denying their motion for reconsideration.
The prosecution in criminal case filed a motion with the Sandiganbayan for the mandatory suspension pendente lite of Torres and Alvarez. The two filed an omnibus motion for the quashal of the information on the ground that the facts alleged therein do not constitute the offense of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 and hence, there was no legal basis for their suspension from office pendente lite. They further prayed that should their motion to quash the information be denied, the criminal proceedings be suspended on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question in the civil case. Torres and Alvarez claimed that the issue in the civil case for reversion filed by the State constituted a prejudicial question under Sections 6 and 7, Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedures, as amended, warranting the suspension of the proceedings in the criminal case. Their motion was denied.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying their motion to quash the information on their claim that the material averments contained therein do not constitute the offense of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019.
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering their suspension from office pendente lite without the conduct of a full-blown hearing.
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying their motion to suspend the criminal case by reason of prejudicial question.
HELD
The contention of petitioners has no merit.
Case law has it that a resolution of the Sandiganbayan denying a motion to quash the information is an interlocutory order and hence, not appealable. Nor can it be the subject of certiorari. The remedy available to petitioners after their motion to quash was denied by the Sandiganbayan was to proceed with the trial of the case, without prejudice to their right to raise the question on appeal if final judgment is rendered against them. Moreover, the petitioners failed to prove that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the motion to quash.
2. The contention of the petitioners is untenable.
Considering the mandatory suspension of the accused under a valid information, the law does not contemplate a proceeding to determine (1) the strength of the evidence of culpability against him, (2) the gravity of the offense charged, or (3) whether or not his continuance in office could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence, so that a court can have a valid basis in evaluating the advisability of his suspension pending the trial proper of the case filed against him. Besides, a requirement that the guilt of the accused must first be established in the pre-suspension proceeding before trial proper can proceed would negate the ruling of the court that the 'xxx mandatory suspension .... requires at the same time that the hearing be expeditious, and not unduly protracted such as to thwart the prompt suspension envisioned by the Act' and make the trial proper a surplusage.' xxx.
Likewise untenable is the contention of the accused that should they be suspended, the people of the Municipality of Noveleta, Cavite would be deprived of the services of the man they elected as Municipal Mayor and their Municipal Engineer. To begin with, nobody is indispensable in a public office. There will always be other persons who can be appointed to the temporarily vacated offices and the law has seen to that in many instances with due regard to the situation cited by the accused therein.
We are in full accord with the disquisitions and ratiocinations of the Sandiganbayan. The suspension pendente lite by the Sandiganbayan of petitioners who were accorded full opportunity to ventilate the issue of the insufficiency of the information for said court, through the filing of pleadings, is inevitable and unassailable, considering our affirmation of the validity of the information filed against them.
3. The contention of the petitioners is untenable.
Regardless of whether or not the Republic wins the suit for reversion of the property subject of the action herein, to the State, and until the reversion itself is ordered the present registered owner of the property (Susana Realty) has rights flowing from ownership and possession which public officers have a duty to respect and protect.
The pendency of the reversion case before the Court of Appeals is of no moment to these proceedings since this does not diminish the rights and obligation with regard to the property at the time of the incident in question.
We hold that Sandiganbayan did not abuse its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in denying their omnibus motion for the suspension of the proceedings pending final judgment in the civil case. Section 6, Rule lll of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, reads:
Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. - A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in court for trial, d shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests.
Sec. 7. Elements of prejudicial question. - The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
Under the amendment, a prejudicial question is understood in law as that which must precede the criminal action and which requires a decision before a final judgment can be rendered in the criminal action with which said question is closely connected. The civil action must be instituted prior to the institution of the criminal action.
In this case, the Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan ahead of the complaint in the civil case filed by the State with the RTC. Thus, no prejudicial question exists.
Besides, a final judgment of the RTC in the civil case declaring the property as foreshore land and hence, inalienable, is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the petitioners in the criminal case.
It bears stressing that unless and until declared null and void by a court of competent jurisdiction in an appropriate action therefor, the titles of SRI over the subject property are valid. SRI is entitled to the possession of the properties covered by said titles. It cannot be illegally deprived of its possession of the property by petitioners in the guise of a reclamation until final judgment is rendered declaring the property covered by said titles as foreshore land.
IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan subject of the petition are AFFIRMED. #END
