G.R. Nos. 141675-96 November 25, 2005
JESUS T. TANCHANCO and ROMEO R. LACSON, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (Second Division), Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Jesus Tanchanco, former NFA Administrator, entered into a Cooperation Agreement with the PCGG on May 6, 1988. In exchange for his complete and truthful cooperation in government investigations and prosecutions concerning ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses, the PCGG agreed to move for the dismissal of pending cases against him, lift sequestration orders, and refrain from filing any additional civil or criminal charges arising from his service in the Marcos government or from information revealed pursuant to the agreement. Tanchanco complied, testifying as a prosecution witness in the RICO case against Imelda Marcos in New York.
Subsequently, in 1997, the government filed 22 criminal Informations against Tanchanco and his co-petitioner, Deputy Administrator Romeo Lacson, before the Sandiganbayan for Malversation and Failure to Render Accounts. Petitioners moved to quash/dismiss, invoking the immunity granted under the Cooperation Agreement. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion, ruling the agreement did not constitute a valid grant of criminal immunity as it was not expressly approved by the Sandiganbayan as required by the Rules of Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to Quash/Dismiss based on the immunity provisions of the Cooperation Agreement.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions, and ordered the dismissal of the criminal cases. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that the State is bound by its contractual commitments, and the PCGG acted within its authority. The Court clarified that the requirement for court approval of an immunity grant under the Rules of Criminal Procedure applies to a witness who is already under prosecution, to compel testimony. This was not the situation here. Tanchanco entered into a contractual agreement before these specific prosecutions were initiated. The PCGG was expressly authorized under Section 5 of Executive Order No. 14-A to grant criminal immunity to secure cooperation in recovering ill-gotten wealth. This executive grant of immunity, made prior to the filing of the informations, is valid and binding. The State, through the PCGG, made a solemn covenant. Having received the benefit of Tanchanco’s cooperation, it is estopped from reneging on its promise not to prosecute him for offenses covered by the agreement. To allow the prosecution would sanction a blatant violation of the agreement and undermine the integrity of the State’s word. The dismissal extends to Lacson as his alleged liability is derived solely from his acts as Tanchanco’s subordinate, which are covered by the immunity for acts arising from Tanchanco’s service.