GR 149495; (August, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 149495 ; August 21, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION) and JOSE JAIME POLICARPIO JR., Respondents.
FACTS
The Office of the Ombudsman filed three separate criminal cases arising from the administration of former President Joseph Estrada. These were: (1) Criminal Case No. 26558 for plunder against Estrada et al., raffled to the Third Division; (2) Criminal Case No. 26565 for illegal use of alias against Estrada, raffled to the Fifth Division; and (3) Criminal Case No. 26566 for indirect bribery against private respondent Jose Jaime Policarpio Jr., raffled to the First Division of the Sandiganbayan. The prosecution filed motions to consolidate the latter two cases with the plunder case, which bore the lowest docket number. The Fifth Division granted consolidation for the illegal use of alias case. However, the First Division denied the motion to consolidate the indirect bribery case with the plunder case.
The prosecution filed this Petition for Certiorari, arguing that the First Division committed grave abuse of discretion in denying consolidation. It contended consolidation would serve judicial economy, ensure a speedy trial, and prevent conflicting factual findings between Divisions on identical issues. During the pendency of this petition, supervening events occurred, including the prosecution filing another motion for consolidation and the Special Division trying the plunder case having already heard witnesses the prosecution intended to present in the indirect bribery case.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan (First Division) committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to consolidate Criminal Case No. 26566 for indirect bribery with Criminal Case No. 26558 for plunder.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The consolidation of cases is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Under Section 22, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court and the Sandiganbayan’s Internal Rules, consolidation is permissible for charges founded on the same facts or forming part of a series of offenses of similar character, but it remains discretionary. Jurisprudence requires that for consolidation to be proper, the cases must arise from the same act or transaction, involve the same issues, and depend on substantially the same evidence, without prejudicing the rights of the parties.
The Court found no capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment by the First Division. The charges of indirect bribery against Policarpio and plunder against Estrada, while potentially related, involved different accused and distinct elements. The Sandiganbayan was in the best position to determine if a joint trial was appropriate to avoid complications and ensure an orderly presentation of evidence. The mere possibility of expeditious proceedings does not mandate consolidation, especially where the court perceives valid reasons against it. Since the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the denial was done in a despotic or arbitrary manner, no grave abuse of discretion warranting certiorari existed. The petition was dismissed.