GR 95642; (May, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 95642 May 28, 1992
AURELIO G. ICASIANO, JR., petitioner, vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Romana Magbago filed an administrative complaint with the Supreme Court against then acting Municipal Trial Court Judge Aurelio G. Icasiano, Jr. for grave abuse of authority, manifest partiality, and incompetence, arising from two orders of detention he issued against her for contempt of court. The Supreme Court dismissed this administrative complaint (Adm. Matter No. MTJ-87-81) for lack of merit. Meanwhile, Magbago also filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, alleging a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019, sec. 3[e]). This complaint (TBP-87-00924) was dismissed by the Tanodbayan for lack of merit. However, a second complaint from Magbago (docketed as TBP-87-01546) was filed, and the investigating prosecutor, unaware of the prior dismissal, conducted a preliminary investigation and recommended the filing of an information. An information was subsequently filed with the Sandiganbayan (Criminal Case No. 14563). Petitioner filed a motion for reinvestigation and later a motion to quash the information, arguing double jeopardy due to the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the administrative case, lack of valid cause of action, and lack of jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan denied both motions, holding that the administrative case was not a bar to the criminal prosecution. Petitioner then filed the present petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in denying the motion to quash the information based on the defense of double jeopardy arising from the prior dismissal of the administrative case by the Supreme Court.
RULING
The petition is DENIED. The Supreme Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan correctly held that double jeopardy does not apply. The protection against double jeopardy requires that the first proceeding be a criminal prosecution before a court, with a valid information, competent court, valid arraignment, plea, and a final judgment of acquittal, conviction, or dismissal without the accused’s consent. The prior proceeding against petitioner was an administrative case before the Supreme Court acting in its administrative capacity, not a criminal trial. An administrative case and a criminal case are distinct proceedings; one is not a bar to the other. Furthermore, the earlier dismissal of the complaint by the Tanodbayan (TBP-87-00924) does not constitute double jeopardy, as a preliminary investigation is not a trial. The temporary restraining order was lifted, and the Sandiganbayan was ordered to proceed with the criminal case.