Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 72 views

    Binay Sansiganbayan Digest

    Uploaded by

    Trisha Dela Rosa
    The Supreme Court rules that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Binay and Magsaysay's cases for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft law, and that there was no violation of their right to a speedy trial nor double jeopardy. While Binay and Magsaysay argue the SB does not have jurisdiction and their cases should be tried in RTC instead, the SC says SB jurisdiction is based on the nature of the office held, not the salary. As mayor, Binay held a grade 27 position even if his salary did not meet that level at the time of the alleged violations. The 6-year delay in filing charges was also deemed reasonable given the complexity of the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Binay Sansiganbayan Digest

    Uploaded by

    Trisha Dela Rosa
    72 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court rules that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Binay and Magsaysay's cases for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft law, and that there was no violation of their right to a speedy trial nor double jeopardy. While Binay and Magsaysay argue the SB does not have jurisdiction and their cases should be tried in RTC instead, the SC says SB jurisdiction is based on the nature of the office held, not the salary. As mayor, Binay held a grade 27 position even if his salary did not meet that level at the time of the alleged violations. The 6-year delay in filing charges was also deemed reasonable given the complexity of the case.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court rules that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Binay and Magsaysay's cases for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft law, and that there was no violation of their right to a speedy trial nor double jeopardy. While Binay and Magsaysay argue the SB does not have jurisdiction and their cases should be tried in RTC instead, the SC says SB jurisdiction is based on the nature of the office held, not the salary. As mayor, Binay held a grade 27 position even if his salary did not meet that level at the time of the alleged violations. The 6-year delay in filing charges was also deemed reasonable given the complexity of the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    72 views2 pages

    Binay Sansiganbayan Digest

    Uploaded by

    Trisha Dela Rosa
    The Supreme Court rules that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Binay and Magsaysay's cases for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft law, and that there was no violation of their right to a speedy trial nor double jeopardy. While Binay and Magsaysay argue the SB does not have jurisdiction and their cases should be tried in RTC instead, the SC says SB jurisdiction is based on the nature of the office held, not the salary. As mayor, Binay held a grade 27 position even if his salary did not meet that level at the time of the alleged violations. The 6-year delay in filing charges was also deemed reasonable given the complexity of the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Binay v.

    Sandiganbayan (MAC) regardless that at the time of commission of the violation his salary did not
    Oct. 1, 1995 | Kapunan, J. | Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases meet grade 27 standard, when the law came about, he is automatically
    classified grade 27 as he is a municipal mayor
    PETITIONER: Jejemar Binay, Mario Magsaysay et al. 8. The other case on the other hand was about overpayment for landscaping in
    RESPONDENTS: Sandiganbayan and DILG a school in Batangas. A complaint was filed initially in RTC but subsequently
    another group of people filed another complaint but this time at
    SUMMARY: Binay and Magsaysay in their respective cases were filed cases for Sandiganbayan.
    violations of RA 3019. They claim SB has no jurisdiction but RTC. SC says no, 9. Such two informations then is the basis of petitioners to quash both as they
    SB has jurisdiction because the basis of “grades” is not salary but nature of work. implore the same offense and that regardless SB has no jurisdiction on him
    SC also says no violation of right to speedy disposition of cases because there was since he does not have a grade 27 salary. Ruling was deferred for this case
    a legitimate reason or circumstance that lead to the 6 year delay of the filing by pending Binay’s
    the prosecution of cases against them ISSUE/s:
    1. WoN the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction?-YES
    DOCTRINE:
    Sec. 4 of the law creating Sandiganbayan gives them exclusive original jurisdiction on
    Right to speedy disposition of cases is not limited to accused in criminal violations of RA 3019 for whose penalty is prision correctional or higher. Otherwise,
    proceedings but all proceedings. Such is violated only for capricious and RTC. On May 1995, RA 7975 was passed (Fact #6). When such law was passed, BInay
    oppressive delays has not yet been arraigned. For the other case of Magsaysay, the informations were
    filed subsequent to such law anyway so no problem as for his case

    FACTS: Sec. 2 of 7975 amended jurisdiction of SB to those officials occupying Grade 27 or


    1. This is a consolidatated petition from 2 actions filed by Jejomar Binay and higher and an enumeration included only city mayors. Otherwise, RTC has
    Mario Magsaysay et al to defer their cases in violation of RA 3019 or the jurisdiction. But subsequently again in 1997, RA 8249 was passed again amending the
    Anti-Graft and Corrupt practices act from Sandiganbayan to RTC jurisdiction of SB. Regardless, the portion where Binay falls was not affected anyway.
    2. The case at bar is a question of the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and But Binay’s main contention technically falls on: (a) when he committed the
    whether such covers municipal mayors who violate RA 3019 and a question violations, his salary was not grade 27 (b) municipal mayors are not included in SB
    of delay in pursuit of the case jurisdiction, only city mayors (c) Congress records show that they intended municipal
    3. Pursuant to a denial by Sandiganbayan to defer the case of Binay to RTC mayors be excluded to avoid them burden of trial in Manila
    Makati, this case for certiorari was filed by Binay. The other case on the other
    hand having similar facts and cause of action was deferred pending the SC: Salary is not the basis of the Compensation and Position Classification Act. It is
    resolution of the Binay case the nature of responsibilities, difficulty and qualifications required of the position, not
    4. The facts that led to the filing of information against Binay’s violation of RA the salary per se. It is the grade which dictates the salary, not the other way around. So
    3019, is related to his incumbency in 1986 as mayor of Makati. He then files regardless if he does not receive the compensation of a grade 27 official, he is still
    a motion to quash for a six year delay by prosecution (the year as of filing grade 27. The other case also has the same facts, therefore same ratio. (Factors that
    of this case is 1994). This was denied (A complaint was filed against him in can affect why he does not get enough salary? Well, that is based upon city budget as
    1988 but only now in 1994 were the informations formally filed) per the LGC, but has no way direct effect on his “grade”).
    5. Prosecution then filed a motion to suspend him pendente lite and was granted
    6. Meanwhile RA 7975 a law that amended SB jurisdiction took effect in May Binay also invokes statcon, what is not included must be excluded
    1995
    7. On the following month in June, Binay then files the deferral of the case to SC: Construction is not even needed when the law is clear and unambiguous. The
    RTC alleging it to be the proper court but was denied holding that wordings of the enumeration obviously only provide examples of who falls on grade
    municipal mayors no doubt are classified as “grade 27”. Even though his 27, but it is not exclusive. Definitely it is not because one cannot expect the lawmakers
    salary in 1986 (year he committed the violations) then did not meet grade 27 to list down all grade 27 officials. The purpose of enumeration was only to give
    salary standards, the basis of the “grading” is the Compensation and Position examples. To further put the nail in the coffin, the LGC says explicitly municipal
    Classification Act passed only in 1989, therefore he cannot claim that his mayors are grade 27. As for the contention of Binay to look into Congressional
    salary did not meet the standards as of 1986 because there was no standard records, the Court cannot do so because they cannot look beyond the words when it is
    based on the law technically at that time. SB then further claims that
    clear. He also points out to look at Sen. Roco’s opinions on the record, but SC says
    opinions of lawmakers are not even binding. Dura lex sed lex

    The SC then furthers the case. After definitely proving SB has jurisdiction, the general
    rule they say is that, when a court already started the trial on a controversy, a law that
    gives another court jurisdiction will not affect the pending case on the original court
    unless the law expressly says otherwise. But RA 7975 has such retroactive clause,
    meaning transfer is possible BUT only to those criminal cases in SB that have not
    started. Think Binay eludes this one? No, because his case has not started yet. Thank
    God. The purpose of the law to exclude those cases started already to transfer so as
    not to waste time and effort of original courts

    2. WoN there was denial of a right to speedy disposition of cases? –NO

    Right to speedy disposition of cases is not limited to accused in criminal


    proceedings but all proceedings. Such is violated only for capricious and
    oppressive delays. Only unjustifiable delays violates such constitutional protection
    for people. In cases involving such constitutional right, a balancing test is in place.
    Balance between the protection of such right and balance to give time to prosecution
    on the basis of the circumstances. It is a flexible concept not a mathematical one. But
    in this case the facts clearly show there was a valid reason for the 6 year delay because
    it is a complex one. It started from a report by COA that found anomalies in Binay.
    The report was released in phases and contained a total of 15 findings. The piecemeal
    release of the reports and the constant back and forth between Binay and COA made
    the determination of probable cause by prosection later. Besides, the prosecution does
    not even rely only on the report of COA because they make their own satisfaction of
    probable cause and they are not auditors that are adept at such findings, all the more
    15 findings of such nature.

    3. WoN there was double jeopardy? –NO

    The original filing of the case as per Magsaysy in RTC does not bar the filing in SB
    because RTC never had proper jurisdiction and never decided on the case as to
    arise double jeopardy. As to application of estoppel, estoppel does not arise against
    the State nor does it apply to criminal cases all the more public offenses like this
    one. As to the issue of the information having filed for multiple violations, it does not
    hold water because multiple informations per offense was filed against them

    RULING: Petition

    You might also like