COMPLAINT/INFO

17.
G.R. Nos. 169823-24. September 11, 2013. DISINI vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS: Disini was charged by the Office of the Ombudsman with corruption of public officials. The Information states:
Criminal Case No. 28001
That during the period from 1974 to February 1986, in Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused HERMINIO T. DISINI,
conspiring together and confederating with the then President of the Philippines Ferdinand E. Marcos, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously offer, promise and give gifts and presents to said Ferdinand E. Marcos, consisting of accused DISINI’s ownership of two billion and five hundred
(2.5 billion) shares of stock in Vulcan Industrial and Mining Corporation and four billion (4 billion)shares of stock in The Energy Corporation, with both shares
of stock having then a book value of ₱100.00 per share of stock, and subcontracts, to Engineering and Construction Company of Asia, owned and controlled
by said Ferdinand E. Marcos, on the mechanical and electrical construction work on the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant Project("Project") of the National
Power Corporation at Morong, Bataan, all for and in consideration of accused Disini seeking and obtaining for Burns and Roe and Westinghouse Electrical
Corporation (Westinghouse), the contracts to do the engineering and architectural design and to construct, respectively, the Project, as in fact said
Ferdinand E. Marcos, taking undue advantage of his position and committing the offense in relation to his office and in consideration of the aforesaid gifts
and presents, did award or cause to be awarded to said Burns and Roe and Westinghouse, the contracts to do the engineering and architectural design and
to construct the Project, respectively, which acts constitute the crime of corruption of public officials.
CONTRARY TO LAW.

Criminal Case No. 28002

That during the period 1974 to February 1986, in Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, accused HERMINIO T. DISINI,
conspiring together and confederating with the then President of the Philippines, Ferdinand E. Marcos, being then the close personal friend and golfing
partner of said Ferdinand E. Marcos, and being further the husband of Paciencia Escolin-Disini who was the first cousin of then First Lady Imelda Romualdez-
Marcos and family physicianof the Marcos family, taking advantage of such close personal relation, intimacy and free access, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and criminally, in connection with the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP)Project ("PROJECT") of the National Power Corporation (NPC) at
Morong, Bataan, request and receive from Burns and Roe, a foreign consultant, the total amount of One Million U.S. Dollars ($1,000,000.00),more or less,
and also from Westinghouse Electric Corporation(WESTINGHOUSE), the total amount of Seventeen Million U.S. Dollars($17,000,000.00), more or less, both
of which entities were then having business, transaction, and application with the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, all for and in consideration
of accused DISINI securing and obtaining, as accused Disini did secure and obtain, the contract for the said Burns and Roe and Westinghouse to do the
engineering and architectural design, and construct, respectively, the said PROJECT, and subsequently, request and receive subcontracts for Power
Contractors, Inc. owned by accused DISINI, and Engineering and Construction Company of Asia (ECCO-Asia), owned and controlled by said Ferdinand E.
Marcos, which stated amounts and subcontracts constituted kickbacks, commissions and gifts as material or pecuniary advantages, for securing and
obtaining, as accused DISINI did secure and obtain, through the direct intervention of said Ferdinand E. Marcos, for Burns and Roe the engineering and
architectural contract, and for Westinghouse the construction contract, for the PROJECT.
CONTRARY TO LAW.

Disini filed a motion to quash, alleging that the informations did not conform to the prescribed form. Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash. Disini
moved for reconsideration but Sandiganbayan denied his motion.
ISSUES: Whether the information complied with the prescribed form under the law
RULING: The informations (Criminal Case No. 28001 [corruption of public officials] and Criminal Case No. 28002 [violation of Section 4(a) of RA No.3019])
were sufficient in form and substance, in accordance with the requirements of Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, viz:
Section 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. — A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the
offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the
commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed.
When the offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint or information.
The fundamental test in determining whether a motion to quash may be sustained is whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, will establish
the essential elements of the offense as defined in the law. Extrinsic matters or evidence aliunde are not considered.
The test does not require absolute certainty as to the presence of the elements of the offense; otherwise, there would no longer be any need for the
Prosecution to proceed to trial.
In Criminal Case No. 28001, the felonious act consisted of causing the contracts for the PNPPP (Philippine Nuclear Power Plant Project) to be awarded to
Burns & Roe and Westinghouse by reason of the gifts and promises offered by Disini to President Marcos.
The elements of corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code are:
1. That the offender makes offers or promises, or gives gifts or presents to a public officer; and
2. That the offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents are given to a public officer under circumstances that will make the public officer
liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery.
The allegations in the information for corruption of public officials, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the crime. The
information stated that: (1) Disini made an offer and promise, and gave gifts to President Marcos, a public officer; and (2) in consideration of the offers,
promises and gifts, President Marcos, in causing the award of the contracts to Burns & Roe and Westinghouse by taking advantage of his position and in
committing said act in relation to his office, was placed under circumstances that would make him liable for direct bribery.
The sufficiency of the allegations in the information charging the violation of Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019 is similarly upheld. The elements of the offense
under Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019 are:
1. That the offender has family or close personal relation with a public official;
 2. That he capitalizes or exploits or takes advantage of such family or close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any
present, gift, material or pecuniary advantage from any person having some business, transaction, application, request or contract with the
government;
3. That the public official with whom the offender has family or close personal relation has to intervene in the business transaction, application,
request, or contract with the government.
The allegations in the information charging the violation of Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the elements of the
offense, considering that: (1) Disini, being the husband of Paciencia Escolin-Disini, the first cousin of First Lady Imelda Romualdez-Marcos, and at the same
time the family physician of the Marcoses, had close personal relations and intimacy with and free access to President Marcos, a public official; (2) Disini,
taking advantage of such family and close personal relations, requested and received $1,000,000.00 from Burns & Roe and $17,000,000.00 from
Westinghouse, the entities then having business, transaction, and application with the Government in connection with the PNPPP (Philippine Nuclear
Power Plant Project); (3) President Marcos, the public officer with whom Disini had family or close personal relations, intervened to secure and obtain for
Burns & Roe the engineering and architectural contract, and for Westinghouse the construction of the PNPPP.

JURISDICTION/VENUE
38.
G.R. No. 200465, April 20, 2015. ASISTIO v. PP
FACTS: Asistio was charged with violation of Section 46 of the Cooperative Code of the Philippines (RA 6938) before the RTC for allegedly defrauding A.
Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative of which she was the Chairperson and Managing Director.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the case arguing that the RTC does not have jurisdiction over the case.
RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the MeTCs, MTC, MCTCs have exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years, and considering that violation of [Sec] 46 of R.A. 6938 would be punishable by imprisonment of not less than six
(6) months nor more than one (1) year and a fine of not less than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00), or both at the discretion of the Court, the RTC has
no jurisdiction to hear and determine the instant case.
On appeal, CA reversed and set aside the RTC Order and remanded the case records to the RTC for further proceedings.
ISSUE: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the case?
RULING: YES. In this case, there was a mistake on the part of the accused and RTC in the use and interpretation of the provision mentioned above in
dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. It appears that the applicable provision is Section 46 (liability of directors, officers and committee members) in
relation to paragraph 3 of Section 124 of RA 6938, which provides that the liable person shall upon conviction suffer a fine of not less than Five thousand
pesos (P5,000.00), or imprisonment of not less than five (5) years but not more than ten (10) years or both at the court's discretion, which under B.P. Blg.
129, shall be within the jurisdiction of the RTC.

RIGHT TO COUNSEL
60.
(There is no issue involving the right of the accused to counsel. The issue involved pertains to promulgation of judgment in absentia)
G.R. Nos. 183152-54. January 21, 2015. REYNALDO H. JAYLO, et. al. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS: Petitioners were officers of the PNP on special detail with the NBI. Petitioners were involved in a buy-bust operation, in the conduct of which the
heroin sellers were killed. The Sandiganbayan found Jaylo, et. al. guilty of homicide.
The court promulgated the Decision in absentia, and the judgment was entered in the criminal docket. The bail bonds of the accused were cancelled, and
warrants for their arrest issued.
Counsel for Jaylo, et. al. moved for reconsideration but the Sandiganbayan denied the same ruling that the accused lose the remedies available to them for
failure to appear, without justifiable cause, at the promulgation of the judgment of conviction.
ISSUE: What are the effects of the non appearance of the accused, without justifiable cause, in the promulgation of the judgment of conviction?
RULING: Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court provides that an accused who failed to appear at the promulgation of the judgment of conviction shall
lose the remedies available against the said judgment.
Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court states:
SECTION 6. Promulgation of judgment. — The judgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused and any judge of the court in which it
was rendered. However, if the conviction is for a light offense, the judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative. When the
judge is absent or outside the province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by the clerk of court.
xxx
The proper clerk of court shall givenotice to the accused personally or through his bondsman or warden and counsel, requiring him to be present at the
promulgation of the decision. If the accused was tried in absentia because he jumped bail or escaped from prison, the notice to him shall be served at his
last known address.
In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of promulgation of judgment despite notice, the promulgation shall be made by recording the
judgment in the criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof at his last known address or thru his counsel.
If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in these rules
against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment, however, the accused may surrender and
file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall state the reasons for his absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his
absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice.
Thus, it is incumbent upon the accused to appear on the scheduled date of promulgation, because it determines the availability of their possible remedies
against the judgment of conviction. When the accused fail to present themselves at the promulgation of the judgment of conviction, they lose the
remedies of filing a motion for a new trial or reconsideration (Rule 121) and an appeal from the judgment of conviction (Rule 122).
The reason is simple. When the accused on bail fail to present themselves at the promulgation of a judgment of conviction, they are considered to have
lost their standing in court. Without any standing in court, the accused cannot invoke its jurisdiction to seek relief.
In this case, petitioners have just shown their lack of faith in the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by not appearing before it for the promulgation of the
judgment on their cases. Surely they cannot later on expect to be allowed to invoke the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction to grant them relief from its judgment
of conviction.
It is well to note that Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court also provides the remedy by which the accused who were absent during the promulgation
may reverse the forfeiture of the remedies available to them against the judgment of conviction. In order to regain their standing in court, the accused
must do as follows: 1) surrender and 2) file a motion for leave of court to avail of the remedies, stating the reasons for their absence, within 15 days from
the date of the promulgation of judgment.
Petitioners did not surrender within 15 days from the promulgation of the judgment of conviction. Neither did they ask for leave of court to avail
themselves of the remedies, and state the reasons for their absence. Even if we were to assume that the failure of Jaylo to appear at the promulgation was
due to failure to receive notice thereof, it is not a justifiable reason. He should have filed a notice of change of address before the Sandiganbayan.
For the failure of petitioners to regain their standing in court and avail themselves of the remedies against the judgment of conviction, the Decision of the
Sandiganbayan attained finality 15 days reckoned from 17 April 2007.