Author: Earvin James M.
Atienza
Citation: 712 SCRA 359, 11 December 2013, G.R. Nos. 188165 & 189063
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL. (2013)
Petitioner: People of the Philippines (Prosecution);
Respondents: Hon. Sandiganbayan, First and Third Divisions (1st Div. & 3rd
Div.), Hernando Benito Perez (Nanie), Rosario Perez
(Rosario) Ramon Arceo (Arceo), and Ernest Escaler
(Escaler);
Action: Special Civil Action for Certiorari (Rule 65);
Ponente: Bersamin, J.
DOCTRINE: Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices;
Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 3019, which punished any public officer for
“[d]irectly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share,
percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with
any contract or transaction between the Government and any other party,
wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the
law.”.
FACTS:
1. Preceding from the exposé of Cong. Villarama in his privilege speech,
Sec. Nanie Perez, together with his wife Rosario, Ramon Arceo and
Ernest Escaler, were all charged for violation of §§ 3(b) and 7 of RA
3019 [Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act], Robbery under Art. 293
in relation to Art. 294, and Falsification of Public Document under Art.
171 of the RPC, for having requested and demanded the amount of
US$ 2,000,000.00 for himself and/or other persons from Mark Jimenez
a.k.a. Mario B. Crespo, and thereafter succeeded in receiving from the
latter the sum of US$1,999,965.00, in consideration of Sec. Nanie
desisting from pressuring Mark Jimenez to execute affidavits
implicating target personalities involved in the plunder case against
former President Estrada and in connection with the pending
application of Mark Jimenez for admission into the Witness Protection
Program of the government, over which transaction Sec. Nanie had to
intervene in his official capacity under the law, to the damage and
prejudice of Mark Jimenez;
2. The Information for violation of §3(b) of RA 3019 was eventually
quashed on the ground of its failure to state the offense charged since
the desistance from putting pressure on Mark Jimenez to implicate
personalities in Estrada’s Plunder Case in consideration for money is
not an act in connection with a “contract or transaction” involving
“monetary consideration” with the government wherein the public
officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law, pursuant
to the ruling in Soriano, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan;
3. The Republic filed Motions for Reconsideration of the quashal but the
same were denied, hence the instant Petitions for Certiorari.
ISSUES:
1. WON the Sandiganbayan wrongly applied the restrictive meaning of the
term “transaction” as used in §3(b) of RA 3019 under Soriano, Jr. v.
Sandiganbayan.
PROVISION: §3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019 [Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act]
RULING + RATIO:
1. No, the Sandiganbayan correctly applied the restrictive meaning of the
term “transaction” as used in the law.
 In holding that the Soriano, Jr. doctrine was not overturned by the
rulings in Mejia, Peligrino and Chang, the Court ruled that proper
usage and interpretation of the term “transaction” was not squarely
discussed in the same cases. Thus:
x x x In its questioned resolution dismissing Criminal
Case No. SB-08- CRM-0265, the Sandiganbayan
relied on the ruling in Soriano, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,
131 SCRA 184 (1984), in which the principal issue
was whether or not the preliminary investigation of a
criminal complaint conducted by petitioner Soriano,
Jr., then a Fiscal, was a “contract or transaction” as to
bring the complaint within the ambit of Section 3 (b)
of Republic Act No. 3019, which punished any public
officer for “[d]irectly or indirectly requesting or
receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or
benefit, for himself or for any other person, in
connection with any contract or transaction between
the Government and any other party, wherein the
public officer in his official capacity has to intervene
under the law”. The Soriano, Jr. Court ruled in the
negative, and pronounced: It is obvious that the
investigation conducted by the petitioner was not
a contract. Neither was it a transaction because
this term must be construed as analogous to the
term which precedes it. A transaction, like a
contract, is one which involves some
consideration as in credit transactions and this
Author: Earvin James M. Atienza
Citation: 712 SCRA 359, 11 December 2013, G.R. Nos. 188165 & 189063
element (consideration) is absent in the
investigation conducted by the petitioner. In the
light of the foregoing, We agree with the petitioner that
it was error for the Sandiganbayan to have convicted
him of violating Sec. 3 (b) of R.A. No. 3019. x x x

(emphasis supplied)

DISPOSITION: Petitions DENIED. Sandiganbayan Decisions are UPHELD.