DISINI v. SANDIGANBAYAN (CHIQUI) No. 3019 aka the Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

September 11, 2013 | Bersamin, J. | Sec 4A 2. (There were no facts provided in this case. Only these two informations
were given).
PETITIONER: Herminio T. Disini a) INFO #1 HERMINIO T. DISINI, conspiring together and
RESPONDENTS: Hon. Sandiganbayan, First Division, and the People of the confederating with the then President Marcos, did then and there,
Philippines willfully, unlawfully and feloniously offer, promise and give gifts
and presents to Marcos xxx all for and in consideration of accused
SUMMARY: The Office of the Ombudsman charged Disini with two criminal Disini seeking and obtaining for Burns and Roe and Westinghouse
complaints. One is under the RPC (corruption of public officials) and the other one Electrical Corporation (Westinghouse), the contracts to do the
is under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Disini assailed the sufficiency of engineering and architectural design and to construct, respectively,
the informations. W/N the informations were sufficient? YES. The informations the Project, said Ferdinand E. Marcos, taking undue advantage of
were sufficient in form and in substance since these contain the allegations his position and committing the offense in relation to his office and
constituting the elements of the offenses. The allegations in the information in consideration of the aforesaid gifts and presents, did award or
charging the violation of Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019, if hypothetically admitted, cause to be awarded to said Burns and Roe and Westinghouse, the
would establish the elements of the offense, considering that: (1) Disini, being the contracts to do the engineering and architectural design and to
husband of Paciencia Escolin-Disini, the first cousin of First Lady Imelda construct the Project, respectively, which acts constitute the crime
Romualdez- Marcos, and at the same time the family physician of the Marcoses, of corruption of public officials.
had close personal relations and intimacy with and free access to President Marcos, b) INFO #2 HERMINIO T. DISINI, conspiring together and
a public official; (2) Disini, taking advantage of such family and close personal confederating with MARCOS, being then the close personal friend
relations, requested and received $1,000,000.00 from Burns & Roe and and golfing partner of Marcos, and being further the husband of the
$17,000,000.00 from Westinghouse, the entities then having business, transaction, first cousin of then First Lady Imelda and family physician of the
and application with the Government in connection with the PNPPP; (3) President Marcos family, taking advantage of such close personal relation,
Marcos, the public officer with whom Disini had family or close personal relations, intimacy and free access, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
intervened to secure and obtain for Burns & Roe the engineering and architectural and criminally, in connection with the Philippine Nuclear Power
contract, and for Westinghouse the construction of the PNPPP. Plant (PNPP) Project ("PROJECT") of the National Power
Corporation (NPC) at Morong, Bataan: request and receive from
DOCTRINE: The elements of the offense under Section 4 (a) of R.A. No. 3019 Burns and Roe, a foreign consultant, the total amount of
are: $1,000,000.00,more or less, and also from Westinghouse Electric
Corporation(WESTINGHOUSE), $17,000,000.00, more or less,
1. That the offender has family or close personal relation with a public both of which entities were then having business, transaction, and
official; application with the Government of the Republic of the
2. That he capitalizes or exploits or takes advantage of such family or close Philippines, all for and in consideration of accused DISINI
personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any securing and obtaining, the contract for the said Burns and Roe and
present, gift, material or pecuniary advantage from any person having Westinghouse to do the engineering and architectural design, and
some business, transaction, application, request, or contract with the construct, respectively, the said PROJECT xxxx
government; 3. Disini file a motion to quash stating that the criminal action has been
3. That the public official with whom the offender has family or close extinguished through prescription and the informations did not conform to
personal relation has to intervene in the business transaction, application, the prescribed form. The motion was opposed by the prosecution.
request, or contract with the government. 4. Consequently, Disini voluntarily submitted himself for arraignment to
obtain permission to travel abroad. He entered a plead of not guilty to both
informations.
5. SB First Division promulgated its first assailed resolution denying the
FACTS: motion to quash. (Idk kung bakit biglang may ganitong fact) Disini moved
1. The Office of the Ombudsman filed two informations dated June 30, 2004 for an MR but it was denied again.
charging Disini in the Sandiganbayan with corruption of public officials, 6. Hence, Disini commenced this special civil action for certiorari.
penalized under Article 212 in relation to Article 210 of the RPC
(corruption of public officials) and with a violation of Section 4 (a) of R.A.
ISSUE/s: personal relations, requested and received $1,000,000.00 from Burns & Roe
1. W/N Disini is under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan? YES and $17,000,000.00 from Westinghouse, the entities then having business,
2. W/N the offenses has prescribed? NO transaction, and application with the Government in connection with the
3. W/N the informations were sufficient in form? YES PNPPP; (3) President Marcos, the public officer with whom Disini had
family or close personal relations, intervened to secure and obtain for Burns
RULING: WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the petition for certiorari; & Roe the engineering and architectural contract, and for Westinghouse the
AFFIRMS the resolutions promulgated on January 17, 2005 and August 10, 2005 by construction of the PNPPP.
the Sandiganbayan (First Division) in Criminal Case No. 28001 and Criminal Case
No. 28002; and DIRECTS petitioner to pay the costs of suit. SO ORDERED. Disini is under the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction
5. The Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over the criminal
RATIO: action involving Disini notwithstanding that he is a private individual
The informations were sufficient in form and in substance. considering that his criminal prosecution is intimately related to the
recovery of ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses, their immediate family,
1. The elements of corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the subordinates and close associates.
Revised Penal Code are: 6. PCGG had the authority to institute the criminal prosecutions against Disini
a) That the offender makes offers or promises, or gives gifts or pursuant to E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A.
presents to a public officer; and 7. That Disini was a private individual did not remove the offenses charged
b) That the offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents are from the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Section 2 of E.O. No. 1, which
given to a public officer under circumstances that will make the tasked the PCGG with assisting the President in "[t]he recovery of all ill-
public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery. gotten wealth accumulated by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his
2. The allegations in the information for corruption of public officials, if immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates, whether
hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the crime. located in the Philippines or abroad, including the takeover or sequestration
The information stated that: (1) Disini made an offer and promise, and gave of all business enterprises and entities owned or controlled by them, during
gifts to President Marcos, a public officer; and (2) in consideration of the his administration, directly or through nominees, by taking undue advantage
offers, promises and gifts, President Marcos, in causing the award of the of their public office and/or using their powers, authority, influence,
contracts to Burns & Roe and Westinghouse by taking advantage of his connections or relationship," expressly granted the authority of the PCGG to
position and in committing said act in relation to his office, was placed recover ill-gotten wealth covered President Marcos' immediate family,
under circumstances that would make him liable for direct bribery. relatives, subordinates and close associates, without distinction as to their
3. The elements of the offense under Section 4 (a) of R.A. No. 3019 are: private or public status.
a) That the offender has family or close personal relation with a 8. Contrary to Disini’s argument, the qualifying clause found in Section 4 of
public official; R.A. No. 8249 applied only to the cases listed in Subsection 4a and
b) That he capitalizes or exploits or takes advantage of such family or Subsection 4b of R.A. No. 8249.
close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or  Under Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan was vested with
receiving any present, gift, material or pecuniary advantage from original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases involving:
any person having some business, transaction, application, request,
or contract with the government; 4a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known
c) That the public official with whom the offender has family or close as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No.1379,
personal relation has to intervene in the business transaction, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code,
application, request, or contract with the government. where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following
4. The allegations in the information charging the violation of Section 4(a) of positions in the government whether in a permanent, acting or interim
R.A. No. 3019, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the elements of capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense: xxx
the offense, considering that: (1) Disini, being the husband of Paciencia
Escolin-Disini, the first cousin of First Lady Imelda Romualdez- Marcos, 4b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other
and at the same time the family physician of the Marcoses, had close crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in
personal relations and intimacy with and free access to President Marcos, a subsection (a) of this section in relation to their office.
public official; (2) Disini, taking advantage of such family and close
 4c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with
Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986. (sequestration
cases)

 Qualifying clause: In cases where none of the accused are occupying

positions corresponding to salary grade ‘27’ or higher, as prescribed in
the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military or PNP officers mentioned
above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the
proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court
and municipal circuit trial court as the case may be, pursuant to their
respective jurisdiction as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as
amended.
9. Public officials occupying positions classified as Grade 27 or higher are
mentioned only in Subsection 4a and Subsection 4b, signifying the plain
legislative intent of limiting the qualifying clause to such public officials.
To include within the ambit of the qualifying clause the persons covered by
Subsection 4c would contravene the exclusive mandate of the PCGG to
bring the civil and criminal cases pursuant to and in connection with E.O.
Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A.
10. In view of this, the Sandiganbayan properly took cognizance the 2 criminal
cases despite Disini's being a private individual, and despite the lack of any
allegation of his being the co- principal, accomplice or accessory of a public
of official in the commission of the offenses charged.

Offenses charged in the information has not yet prescribed.

11. In resolving the issue of prescription, the following must be considered,

namely: (1) the period of prescription for the offense charged;(2) the time
when the period of prescription starts to run; and (3) the time when the
prescriptive period is interrupted. Prescription did not yet set in because
only five years elapsed from 1986, the time of the discovery of the offenses
charged, up to April 1991, the time of the filing of the criminal complaints
in the Office of the Ombudsman.