G. R. Em. 166948-59 В В В В В В В August 30, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, вЂЁvs. вЂЁMEINRADO ENRIQUE A. BELLO, MANUEL S. SA TUITO, **** MINVILUZ S i9000. CAMINA, JOELITA TRABUCO, ABEL, IO JUANEZA, ROSALINDA G. TROPEL, FELIPE Y. VILLAROSA, RAUL APOSAGA, HERMIE BARBASA and SERIE BARBASA-PERLAS, Respondents. D Electronic C We S I actually O D
This case is approximately the Sandiganbayan's criminal legislation over graft charges recorded against the Legal Department Brain of the Military of the Philippines-Retirement and Parting Benefit System (AFP-RSBS) fantastic co-accused. The Facts and the Case
In 1998 the Senate Green Ribbon Committee (the Committee) inquired in to alleged particularite at the AFP-RSBS. After analysis, the Panel found that whenever acquiring royaume, the AFP-RSBS would execute two units of deeds of sales: one, a great unnotarized zwei staaten betreffend deed of sale that showed a higher price and the additional, a unilateral deed of sale that showed a discounted purchase price. The first would be kept by AFP-RSBS Legal Department while the second will be held by vendors. These would after that use these unilateral deeds of sale in securing titles in the name of AFP-RSBS. This was done, in line with the Committee, to enable the AFP-RSBS to pull more money from the funds and enable the vendors to pay lesser taxes. The Committee recommended to the Ombudsman (OMB) the prosecution of General Jose Ramiscal, Junior. (Ret. ), former AFP-RSBS president, who signed the unregistered deeds of sale covering purchases of gets in General Santos, Tanauan, Calamba, and Iloilo for desordre of community documents or perhaps violation of Article 172, paragraph one particular, in relation to Content 171, sentences 4 to 6 with the Revised Criminal Code (RPC), and violation of Republic Act (R. A. ) 3019, 1 Sections 3(e) and 3(g). Acting on the Committee's advice, the OMB filed according to acquisition of lands in Iloilo City informations before the Sandiganbayan in Lawbreaker Cases 26770-75 and 26826-31 against respondents Meinrado Enrique A. Armonia, Manuel S i9000. Satuito, Sarta Barbasa-Perlas, Hermie Barbasa, Minviluz Camina, Joelita Trabuco, Rosalinda Tropel, Felipe Villarosa, Abelio Juaneza, and Raul Aposaga for six counts of violation of R. A. 3019, Section 3(e), and six counts of desordre of community documents below Article 171, RPC. Satuito and Armonia filed a motion to dismiss and a movement to overthrow the infos on the ground the fact that Sandiganbayan acquired no legislation over the circumstance. On Feb 12, 2005 the Sandiganbayan granted the motions and ordered the remand from the records for the proper tennis courts, hence, this petition by People of the Philippines, represented by OMB, which challenges this kind of order. The situation Presented
The sole issue provided in this case is whether or not really the Sandiganbayan erred in holding that it has no legal system over offenses involving the brain of the legal departments of government-owned and controlled companies. The Lording it over of the The courtroom
In its Feb . 12, 2004 decision, the Sandiganbayan organised that, not being a stock or non-stock company, AFP-RSBS may not be regarded as a government-owned and controlled corporation. Consequently, respondent AFP-RSBS legal department officers did not come under Section 4(a)(1)(g) of L. A. 8249 that defines the legal system of the Sandiganbayan. 2 In motion to get reconsideration by the prosecution, yet , the Sandiganbayan changed where it stands and dominated that AFP-RSBS is in the end a government-owned and managed corporation, having been created by simply special rules to perform a public function. Still, the Sandiganbayan organised that Section 4(a)(1)(g) cannot apply to the accused since Bello, who also held the very best rank between those who allegedly conspired to commit the crime incurred, did not hold any of the government positions enumerated under that section, the pertinent portion of which says: Sec. some. Section 5 of the same decree is hereby further corrected to read as follows: Sec. 5. Jurisdiction. вЂ“...