G.R. No. 109266 December 2, 1993
MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, petitioner, vs. HON. JUSTICE FRANCIS GARCHITORENA, SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

On May 1, 1991, petitioner Miriam Defensor Santiago was charged before the Sandiganbayan (First Division) in Criminal Case No. 16698 with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for allegedly favoring “unqualified” aliens under the Alien Legalization Program. On October 16, 1992, she filed a motion for the inhibition of Presiding Justice Francis Garchitorena. The Sandiganbayan set the arraignment for November 13, 1992, which petitioner moved to defer due to the pending inhibition motion and her intent to file a motion for a bill of particulars. The court denied the motion to defer. Petitioner filed a motion for a bill of particulars, arguing the information lacked a list of the favored aliens. The Supreme Court later directed the Sandiganbayan to reset the arraignment and resolve the pending incidents. The prosecution initially stated it would file only one amended information but later filed a motion to admit 32 Amended Informations. On March 3, 1993, Presiding Justice Garchitorena denied the motion for his disqualification. On March 14, 1993, the Sandiganbayan admitted the 32 Amended Informations and ordered petitioner to post bail. Petitioner then filed this petition for certiorari to set aside the March 3, 1993 resolution and to declare Presiding Justice Garchitorena disqualified, as well as the March 14, 1993 resolution deeming the 32 Amended Informations filed. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order.

ISSUE

1. Whether Presiding Justice Francis Garchitorena should be disqualified from acting in Criminal Case No. 16698.
2. Whether petitioner’s constitutional right to due process was violated by the delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation and the filing of the information.
3. Whether the Amended Informations charged an offense punishable under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 .

RULING

1. On the disqualification of Presiding Justice Garchitorena: The petition is without merit. Petitioner’s claim of prejudgment is based on a letter written by Presiding Justice Garchitorena published in the Philippine Star on July 29, 1992, which stated petitioner was charged “with having favored unqualified aliens with the benefits of the Alien Legalization Program.” The Court found this statement was merely a restatement of the allegation in the Information filed against petitioner and was written in defense of the Sandiganbayan’s dignity in response to a columnist’s criticism. The letter did not touch upon the merits of the charge. Furthermore, the Sandiganbayan’s collegiate character, requiring unanimity among its three division members for a decision, renders baseless the fear of prejudice from one member.
2. On the claim of denial of due process due to delay: The claim is untenable. The Court distinguished this case from Tatad v. Sandiganbayan, as there was a continuum of the investigatory process delayed by the complexity of the issues, not unexplained inaction. The investigation began after a news report in January 1989, underwent review, and reached the Ombudsman by March 1991. The Court also noted petitioner failed to raise this issue in her two prior petitions involving the same criminal case.
3. On the sufficiency of the Amended Informations: The Court found that the Amended Informations sufficiently charged an offense under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 . The Informations alleged evident bad faith and manifest partiality in approving applications of aliens who arrived after January 1, 1984, contrary to Executive Order No. 324, causing undue injury to the government. The determination of whether petitioner’s acts were authorized by law or constituted a criminal offense is a matter of defense best resolved during trial. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
DISSENTING OPINION (Justice Feliciano, joined by Justices Gutierrez, Griño-Aquino, Romero, and with substantive points adopted by Justice Melencio-Herrera):
The dissent argued that the acts charged, based on petitioner’s interpretation and application of Executive Order No. 324, do not constitute a crime as a matter of law, absent any corrupt intent for personal profit. It emphasized that a public officer should not be subjected to a criminal trial if the legal characterization of the acts is the core issue. The dissent voted to grant the petition and require the Sandiganbayan to dismiss the 32 Amended Informations.