DANTE GUEVARRA, AUGUSTUS F.

CESAR and ADRIANO SALVADOR, Petitioners,

vs.
THE HON. FOURTH DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, ZENAIDA P. PIA and CRESENCIANO D. GATCHALIAN

G.R. Nos. 138792-804. March 31, 2005

FACTS:

Administrators of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines were sued for violation of RA 3019
in the office of the Ombudsman. On allegations that the accused have caused undue damage to
the government in connection with questionable transactions entered into by PUP. The filing was
docketed in COA Case No. 32-290. Arraignment was set. Graft investigator Evalina Reyes,
recommended that the charges be dismissed, however, Ombudsman disapproved and adopted
instead the recommendation of Special Prosecutor Cicero Jurado Jr to charge the Olonan,
Guevarra, Cesar and Salvador with 17 counts on violation of RA 3019 Section 3 (e). Upon review
on the recommendation of Jurado, Special Prosecutor Evelyn Agcaoili submitted a memorandum
recommending the 17 cases be filed and Case 22854 be withdrawn. She referred the case to
Judge Marigomen and recommended the dropping of some of the charges against Zenaida Olonan
only, and remains to be one of the accused in CC Nos 23083, 23088 and 23098 – approved by
Ombudsman. It turned out that those 13 cases which were also filed against Guevarra, Cesar and
Salvador were also dismissed. Special Prosecutor prayed before the Sandiganbayan to consider
reinstating the 13 cases against the other three. Accused opposed the motion.

ISSUES:

1. WON respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in reinstating the

thirteen (13) criminal cases against the petitioners beyond the 15-day period to file
a motion for reconsideration

YES. The Sandiganbayan ordered the dismissal of the 13 cases as against the
petitioners over the objection of the Special Prosecutor on its erroneous perception
that Justice Marigomen recommended in his report the dismissal of the 13 cases
against the petitioners. By its Order, the graft court deprived the respondent People
of the Philippines of its right to due process. In fine, the Sandiganbayan acted in
excess of its jurisdiction and committed grave abuse of its discretion in dismissing
the 13 criminal cases against the petitioners

2. WON respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion
for reconsideration on the basis solely of the grounds cited by the prosecution.

NO. Rectifying the dismiss order to the 13 criminal cases as did the graft court,
despite the lapse of fifteen days from notice of the Special Prosecutor of its January
26, 1998 Order. By rectifying its void Order, it cannot be said that the graft court
acted with grave abuse of its discretion, amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.

HELD:

1.