G.R. No. 103754-78 August 30, 1994
GOVERNOR MARIANO UN OCAMPO, III, petitioner, vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (Second Division) and OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, respondents.

FACTS

On June 6, 1991, twenty-five separate criminal informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan against petitioner Governor Mariano Un Ocampo III, Andres Flores, and William Uy. The charges stemmed from complaints alleging violations of the Revised Penal Code, the Local Government Code, Republic Act No. 3019, and other laws. Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash these informations. On February 6, 1992, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying the Motion to Quash, stating that the matters raised were defenses proper for trial. The following day, February 7, 1992, the Sandiganbayan issued another Resolution ordering the preventive suspension of petitioner for 90 days. Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Certiorari seeking annulment of these Resolutions on grounds of grave abuse of discretion. In a Resolution dated October 22, 1992, the Supreme Court quashed nineteen of the twenty-five informations, finding a lack of criminal culpability apparent from the informations and supporting documentary evidence for those charges (violations of R.A. No. 3019). The Court also lifted the preventive suspension order as moot due to the expiration of petitioner’s governorship. The petition proceeded regarding the remaining six criminal cases for malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to Quash the remaining six criminal cases for malversation.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s denial of the Motion to Quash the six remaining malversation cases. The Court distinguished these cases from the nineteen it had previously dismissed. For the dismissed cases under R.A. No. 3019, the essential elements of the offenses were indisputably lacking based on the informations and documentary evidence. However, for the six malversation cases, the petitioner’s defenses—such as his resignation from the Lingkod Tarlac Foundation, Inc. (LTFI) prior to the alleged acts, the funds becoming private after being loaned to LTFI, and the validity of the loan agreements—were not indubitable and were contested by the prosecution. The allegations in the informations for these six cases, which must be hypothetically admitted for a motion to quash, sufficiently charged offenses. The Court held that these defenses must be threshed out during trial and passed upon by the Sandiganbayan, and it would be precipitate for the Supreme Court to peremptorily decide on them. Accordingly, the Court confirmed its October 22, 1992 Resolution quashing the nineteen informations but affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s denial of the quashal for Criminal Cases Nos. 16786, 16787, 16794, 16795, 16796, and 16802.