Case Digest - Garcia v. Sandiganbayan 2018

CASE: Garcia v.
Sandiganbayan cause to indict the petitioner for

Date: October 17, violation of Sections 3(e) and 3(g) of
G.R. No. 205904-06,
2018 R.A. No. 3019.
Ponente: A. Reyes, Jr.
Topic: 3. In addendum to the resolution, then
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales
Parties: held that there is also evidence that
petitioner is probably guilty of the
Petitioners: crime of Technical Malversation.
Gwendolyn F. Garcia
4. On July 19, 2021, informations
Respondents: charging Garcia for violations of
Honorable Saandiganbayan, and People of the Sections 3(e) and 3(g) of R.A. No.
Philippines 3019 and Art. 220 of the RPC were
filed before the Sandiganbayan.
Petitioners filed a petition for 5. Subsequently, on July 24, 2014, the

certiorari assailing resolution dated Sandiganbbayan issued three (3) Hold
January 2, 2013 and the 3 HDO dated Departure Order against petitioner
Filing July 24, 2021 issued by the and her co-accused.
Sandiganbayan in Crim Cases Nos. SB-
12; CRM-0175 to 0177.
6. On July 25, 2012, the petitioner filed a
Motion for Reconsideration/
Ombuds Filed criminal and administrative
charges before the Sandiganbayan Reinvestigation of the Resolution
man dated August 26, 2011, praying for a
reinvestigation of the case and
reversal of the finding of probable
issued 3 HDOs
Sandiga Denied the MR. cause against her for violations of
nbayan Section 3(e) and 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019
and Article 220 of the RPC.
A. Before there could be a valid
prosecution, there must be actual
Dismissed the petition for lack of
injury for supposed violation for
SC merit.
supposed violation of the same
law.
B. There was no technical
I. FACTS:
malversation, the purchase fall
under the corporate powers of
1. The OMB-Visayas, through PACPO-
LGU (Province of Cebu)
Visayas initiated the filling of criminal
and administrative charges against
7. On September 4, 2021, the petitioner
the accountable public officials and
received a Notice of HDO. She filed MR
employees.
(to set aside prematurely –issued
HDOs)
2. In a Resolution dated August 26,
2011, the OMB-Office of the Overall
Deputy Ombudsman found probable
a. HDOs cannot be issued without a 9. On March 11, 2013, the petitioner
final determination of probable filed the instant petition for certiorari,
cause. praying that the Resolution dated
b. HDOs were violative of her January 2, 2013 be reversed and set
constitutional right to travel, aside and that the HDOs dated July 24,
which may be impaired only in 2012 be lifted and set aside. Grounds:
the interest of national security, The Sandiganbayan acted with
public safety, or public health, as grave abuse of discretion
maybe provided by law. amounting to lack or excess of
8. The prosecution dismissed the jurisdiction:
petitioner's arguments and argued
that the Resolution dated August 26, 1. when it issued the HDOs in the
2011 was, for all intents and absence of any law, governmental
purposes, a final determination of regulation or guidelines authorizing
probable cause against her as it bore its issuance.
the signature of the Ombudsman who
signified her review and approval 2. when it issued the HDOs without
thereof. sufficient justification for curtailing
the constitutionally-guaranteed right
to travel.
a. There was likewise no premature
issuance of HDOs since the 3. when it issued the HDOs despite a
Sandiganbayan had already acquired pending motion for reconsideration
jurisdiction over the case when the before the OMB.
informations were file before the 4. The Sandiganbayan does not have the
Sandiganbayan. authority of any law or governmental
regulation to issue an HDO.
Ruling of the Sandiganbayan

II. ISSUE
On January 2, 2013, the Sandiganbayan
issued a Resolution denying the motion filed Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave
by the petitioner. abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in the aboveentioned
There is nothing premature in, and no legal grounds.
impediment whatsoever to, the issuance of
HDOs in these cases by the Court following a III. RULING OF THE SC
valid judicial determination of probable cause
to hold movant for trial, NO.
Such action of the Court did not oust it of The power to issue HDO is an inherent
jurisdiction over the cases and over the power belonging to the courts.
person of the accused. Movant remains  It bears emphasizing that in Genuino
charged before the Court with the offenses v. De Lima, the Court already declared
described in the Informations filed. as unconstitutional DOJ Circular
No. 41 on the ground that it has no
******** ***** legal basis.
 DOJ Circular No. 41 is not a law. to issue A.M. No. 18-07-05-SC pertaining to
 The Court intentionally held that the the Rule on Precautionary Hold Departure
issuance of HDOs shall pertain only to Order, a remedy formulated to fill in the
criminal cases within the exclusive vacuum created by the declaration of nullity
jurisdiction of the RTC, to the of DOJ Circular No. 41.
exclusion of criminal cases falling
within the jurisdiction of the MTC and The HDOs were not prematurely issued
all other cases.
 The circular was not meant to exclude  [W]hile it is the Ombudsman who has
all other courts from issuing HDO but, the full discretion to determine
more accurately, seeks to make a whether or not a criminal case should
distinction among the types of be filed in the Sandiganbayan, once
criminal offenses by excluding less the case has been filed with said
grave and light offenses from the court, it is the Sandiganbayan, and no
instances when an HDO may be longer the Ombudsman, which has full
validly issued. control of the case so much so that the
 The Sandiganbayan issues HDO informations may not be dismissed
because it has the authority to do so without the approval of the said court.
and this attaches from the moment it  Verily, "once jurisdiction attaches, it
acquired jurisdiction over the case shall not be removed from the court
and over the person. In this case, until the termination of the case."
jurisdiction over the case was  The rule, therefore, in this
acquired when the Informations jurisdiction is that once a
against the petitioner were filed with
complaint or information is filed in
the Sandiganbayan on July 19, 2012.
court, any disposition of the case,
Thereafter, the petitioner voluntarily
submitted herself to the jurisdiction whether it be dismissal or the
of the court by posting bail of conviction or the acquittal of the
P30,000.00 for each of the cases filed accused, rests in the sound
against her. discretion of the court.
The implication of posting of a Rule II Section 7 of Administrative Order
bond was well-explained No. 07 reads:
in Manotoc v. Court of b) The filing of a motion for
Appeals,73 viz.: reconsideration/reinvestigation shall not
A court has the power to prohibit a bar the filing of the corresponding
person admitted to bail from leaving information in Court on the basis of the
the Philippines. This is a necessary finding of probable cause in the resolution
consequence of the nature and
subject of the motion. (As amended by
function of a bail bond.
Administrative Order No. 15, dated February
16, 2000)
Thus, it is not entirely correct for the
petitioner to argue that the issuance of HDOs
amounted to an unreasonable restriction on Disposition:
her liberty of movement or right to travel. The petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
The indispensable necessity of the resort to

the inherent power to issue HDO was
epitomized in Genuino, which led this Court

Case Digest - Garcia v. Sandiganbayan 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest - Garcia v. Sandiganbayan 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE: Garcia v.

Sandiganbayan cause to indict the petitioner for

Petitioners filed a petition for 5. Subsequently, on July 24, 2014, the

Ruling of the Sandiganbayan

The indispensable necessity of the resort to

You might also like