G.R. No. 152259 July 29, 2004
ALFREDO T. ROMUALDEZ, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (Fifth Division) and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Alfredo T. Romualdez, brother-in-law of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, was charged before the Sandiganbayan with violating Section 5 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act ( Republic Act No. 3019 ). The Information alleged that in 1975, he willfully and unlawfully intervened in a contract between the government-owned National Shipyard and Steel Corporation (NASSCO) and the Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Company (BASECO), a private corporation largely owned by Marcos. Prior to arraignment, Romualdez filed multiple motions to dismiss or quash the information on various grounds, including the alleged invalidity of the preliminary investigation, violation of his right to be informed of the accusation, prescription of the offense, and a claim of immunity under the 1973 Constitution.
The Sandiganbayan denied these successive motions. It found that most grounds had been previously raised and resolved, and specifically held that the constitutional immunity claimed by Romualdez under the 1973 Constitution was inapplicable as the provision took effect only in 1981, years after the alleged 1975 acts. Romualdez then filed this Petition for Certiorari, challenging the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions and additionally arguing that Section 5 of R.A. No. 3019 is unconstitutional for being vague and overbroad.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Romualdez’s motions to dismiss; and (2) Whether Section 5 of R.A. No. 3019 is unconstitutional for being vague and overbroad.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the constitutionality of Section 5 of R.A. No. 3019 . On procedural grounds, the Court ruled that repetitive motions to quash or dismiss a criminal information prior to plea and trial unduly delay proceedings. Grounds not included in the first such motion are generally deemed waived, preventing accused persons from piecemeal litigation that burdens the courts. The Sandiganbayan correctly denied the motions, as the issues raised, including the inapplicability of the 1973 constitutional immunity, were without merit.
On the substantive challenge, the Court held that Section 5, which penalizes certain presidential relatives who “intervene, directly or indirectly, in any business, transaction, contract or application with the Government,” is not void for vagueness. The terms are sufficiently clear and can be understood through simple statutory construction. Crucially, the constitutional doctrines of “overbreadth” and “void-for-vagueness” as grounds for invalidation are generally limited to cases involving free speech. They do not apply to penal statutes regulating conduct, such as the Anti-Graft Law. The provision provides a definite standard of conduct for those covered and gives fair warning of proscribed actions, satisfying due process requirements. The law is a valid exercise of police power to prevent corruption and conflicts of interest involving close relatives of high officials.