G.R. No. 128790 November 25, 1998
EDUARDO P. PILAPIL, petitioner, vs. HON. FRANCISCO E. GARCHITORENA, as Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan; HON. JOSE S. BALAJADIA, HARRIET O. DEMETRIOU, and HON. ROBERTO M. LAGMAN, as Members of the Sandiganbayan, Second Division; and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a complaint by Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francisco E. Garchitorena against petitioner Eduardo P. Pilapil, then a congressman, regarding an ambulance donated by the PCSO to the Municipality of Tigaon, Camarines Sur. Petitioner received the ambulance but did not deliver it to the municipality. After inquiries by Mayor Lelis and Justice Garchitorena, petitioner returned the ambulance to the PCSO. An information for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 was filed against petitioner (Criminal Case No. 16672). After a reinvestigation, the Ombudsman approved a recommendation to dismiss the case and filed a Motion to Withdraw Information with the Sandiganbayan’s Third Division. Justice Cipriano del Rosario of the Third Division voluntarily inhibited himself. Presiding Justice Garchitorena, as the complainant, issued Administrative Order No. 79-96 assigning the case to the Second Division. Petitioner filed motions challenging the assignment and the Second Division’s order requiring the Presiding Justice to comment on the Motion to Withdraw Information, arguing violation of due process and R.A. No. 7975 . The Second Division denied the Motion to Withdraw Information, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Sandiganbayan can try Criminal Case No. 16672 where its Presiding Justice is the complainant without violating the impartiality requirement of due process.
2. Whether Presiding Justice Garchitorena validly assigned the case to the Second Division upon the voluntary inhibition of a justice from the Third Division, without violating R.A. No. 7975 .
3. Whether the Second Division validly denied the Ombudsman’s Motion to Withdraw Information.

RULING

1. Yes. The Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan can try the case. The impartiality requirement is not violated simply because the Presiding Justice is the complainant. The Court, in a prior related case ( G.R. No. 101978 ), had already approved of his act of bringing the transgression to the attention of officials as a citizen’s responsibility. The trial would be conducted by a division from which he was excluded, ensuring impartiality.
2. Yes. The assignment was valid. The Court held that R.A. No. 7975 applies when a division cannot form a quorum due to legal disqualification. In this case, the inhibition of one justice did not result in a lack of quorum for the Third Division. The Presiding Justice’s administrative order assigning the case to another division was an exercise of his power under the Sandiganbayan’s internal rules governing the allotment and redistribution of cases, which is expressly authorized by the Constitution and P.D. No. 1606, as amended.
3. Yes. The denial was valid. The Court upheld the Sandiganbayan’s authority and discretion to deny a motion to withdraw an information, even if filed by the Ombudsman, and to require a hearing on the merits. Once a case is filed in court, the court acquires full authority and discretion over its disposition. The prosecution’s motion is not binding on the court, which must consider the rights of both the accused and the State/complainant to due process. The Second Division acted within its jurisdiction in denying the motion and ordering the case to proceed to trial.