G.R. No. 182382 -83; February 24, 2010
JAIME S. DOMDOM, Petitioner, vs. HON. THIRD AND FIFTH DIVISIONS OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, COMMISSION ON AUDIT and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Hilconeda P. Abril, a State Auditor V of the Commission on Audit (COA), filed an affidavit requesting the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate the claims of Jaime S. Domdom (petitioner) for miscellaneous and extraordinary expenses as a Director of the Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation (PCIC), based on allegedly tampered receipts. After preliminary investigation, the Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause to charge petitioner with nine counts of estafa through falsification of documents due to irregularities in nine supporting receipts for his claims. The Informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan and separately raffled among its five divisions. The First, Second, and Fifth Divisions granted petitioner’s Motions for Consolidation of the cases raffled to them with the case having the lowest docket number (SB-07-CRM-0052), which was raffled to the Third Division. However, the Sandiganbayan Third Division disallowed the consolidation via Resolutions dated February 12 and May 8, 2008, holding mainly that the evidence in the cases sought to be consolidated differed from that to be presented in the case with the lowest docket number. The Fourth Division also denied consolidation. Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with this Court, arguing that all cases arose from substantially identical series of transactions involving alleged overstatements of miscellaneous and extraordinary expenses. The People of the Philippines countered that petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration, that the petition was filed out of time, that consolidation is a matter of judicial discretion, and that the proceedings may proceed independently as the Informations charged separate crimes committed on separate occasions.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the consolidation of the nine counts of estafa through falsification of documents filed against petitioner.

RULING

Yes. The petition is GRANTED. The Supreme Court held that the consolidation of the cases was proper. The requisites for consolidation, as laid down in Teston v. Development Bank of the Philippines, are present: the cases arise from the same act, event or transaction, involve the same or like issues, and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence. The Court noted that the only differences in the cases were the date of the transaction, the entity transacted with, and the amount involved. The charge and core element were the same—estafa through falsification based on alleged overstatements of claims for miscellaneous and extraordinary expenses—and the main witness was the same. Consolidation avoids multiplicity of suits, prevents delays, simplifies the work of the trial court, and avoids the possibility of rendering conflicting decisions. The Court also addressed procedural objections, finding exceptions to the requirement of a prior motion for reconsideration (as the issue had been duly raised and passed upon, delay would prejudice petitioner, and the issue was purely of law) and allowed the motion for extension to file the petition. The Third Division of the Sandiganbayan was directed to allow consolidation with SB-07-CRM-0052, and all other Divisions were ordered to forward the subject cases to the Third Division.