GR 202243; (August, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 202243 ; August 7, 2013
ROMULO L. NERI, Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH DIVISION) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Romulo L. Neri, former NEDA Director-General, was charged before the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division with violation of Section 3(h) of R.A. 3019 in relation to the ZTE-NBN Project. The prosecution alleged he had financial interest in the government’s transaction with ZTE Corporation. After the prosecution presented several witnesses, the Office of the Special Prosecutor moved to consolidate Neri’s case (SB-10-CRM-0099) with the related case against Benjamin Abalos (SB-10-CRM-0098) pending before the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division, arguing consolidation would promote expeditious resolution and save government expense by allowing common witnesses to testify once.
Neri opposed, contending the cases involved different facts and issues, that consolidation was oppressive, and that it would violate his rights as he was the principal witness against Abalos. The Sandiganbayan Fifth Division granted the motion, finding consolidation proper as both cases arose from the same ZTE-NBN transaction. Neri filed a Petition for Certiorari, arguing the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the prosecution’s motion to consolidate Neri’s criminal case with the Abalos case.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and nullified the consolidation order. The Court held that while consolidation is generally discretionary to promote efficiency, such discretion must be exercised within the bounds of law and not capriciously. The legal logic centered on the principle that consolidation is proper only when the offenses charged are of the same or similar character or arise from the same series of acts. Here, the Informations against Neri and Abalos alleged distinct acts constituting different violations: Neri was charged under Section 3(h) of R.A. 3019 for having financial interest, while Abalos was charged under the same provision for persuading or influencing a public officer. The acts, elements, and evidence required for each case were materially different.
The Court found the Sandiganbayan’s reliance on the mere commonality of the ZTE-NBN project as the transaction involved was overly broad and legally insufficient to justify consolidation. Consolidation would not serve judicial economy but would instead prejudice Neri’s right to a speedy trial, as his case had already progressed significantly while the Abalos case was at an earlier stage. The Sandiganbayan’s order, which failed to consider these material distinctions and the potential violation of the accused’s rights, was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The cases were ordered to proceed independently before their respective divisions.