GR 162214; (November, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 162214 ; November 11, 2004
MARIALEN C. CORPUZ and ANTONIO H. ROMAN, SR., petitioners, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN (Special Fourth Division) and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Marialen C. Corpuz and Antonio H. Roman, Sr., officers of FILSYN Corporation, were charged before the Sandiganbayan with multiple counts of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) in relation to the “tax credit scam.” The Informations alleged they conspired with public officers and Petron Corporation officials to illegally transfer Tax Credit Certificates worth over P131 million, causing undue injury to the government. After the cases were raffled to the Sandiganbayan’s Fourth Division, petitioners filed a motion for reinvestigation/reconsideration with the Ombudsman, which was granted by the court, giving the prosecution 60 days to resolve it.
The prosecution failed to resolve the motion within the 60-day period. Subsequently, the Chairman of the Fourth Division, Justice Narciso S. Nario, issued a verbal order dismissing the criminal cases against all accused, citing the prosecution’s inaction and violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial. However, the Sandiganbayan, acting as a Division of Five Members, later issued a Resolution setting aside Justice Nario’s verbal order of dismissal. The court held that the order was issued without a prior written motion from the accused and without the required concurrence of the other division members. The Sandiganbayan denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the verbal order of dismissal issued by the Chairman of its Fourth Division.
RULING
No, the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan’s Resolution setting aside the verbal order of dismissal. The Court emphasized that a collegiate court, like a division of the Sandiganbayan, must act as a body. Its authority is vested in the court, not in any single member. The verbal order of dismissal issued solely by the Chairman, Justice Nario, was a nullity because it was not the act of the Division. A valid order or decision requires the concurrence of a majority of the members of the division.
The Court further ruled that the dismissal was improperly granted. The right to speedy trial was not violated. The 60-day period given to the prosecution was for resolving the reinvestigation motion, not for trial. The period was also interrupted by various motions filed by the accused themselves. More critically, there was no prior written motion to dismiss on the ground of denial of speedy trial filed by the accused, which is a procedural requirement. The Sandiganbayan, therefore, correctly corrected its own erroneous procedure by vacating the unilateral verbal order. Its action was a proper exercise of its inherent power to control its processes and correct its errors, not an abuse of discretion. The petition for certiorari and mandamus was denied.