Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52950:gr-147026-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 15:49:25+00:00

Document:
G.R. NOS. 147026-27 - Carolina R. Javier v. Sandiganbayan, et al.
CAROLINA R. JAVIER, Petitioner, v. THE FIRST DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari1 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Carolina R. Javier in Criminal Case Nos. 25867 and 25898, entitled "People of the Philippines, Plaintiff v. Carolina R. Javier, Accused," seeking to nullify respondent Sandiganbayan's: (1) Order2 dated November 14, 2000 in Criminal Case No. 25867, which denied her Motion to Quash Information; (2) Resolution3 dated January 17, 2001 in Criminal Case No. 25898, which denied her Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Quash Information; and (3) Order4 dated February 12, 2001, declaring that a motion for reconsideration in Criminal Case No. 25898 would be superfluous as the issues are fairly simple and straightforward.
On June 7, 1995, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8047,5 or otherwise known as the "Book Publishing Industry Development Act", was enacted into law. Foremost in its policy is the State's goal in promoting the continuing development of the book publishing industry, through the active participation of the private sector, to ensure an adequate supply of affordable, quality-produced books for the domestic and export market.
To achieve this purpose, the law provided for the creation of the National Book Development Board (NBDB or the Governing Board, for brevity), which shall be under the administration and supervision of the Office of the President. The Governing Board shall be composed of eleven (11) members who shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines, five (5) of whom shall come from the government, while the remaining six (6) shall be chosen from the nominees of organizations of private book publishers, printers, writers, book industry related activities, students and the private education sector.
On February 26, 1996, petitioner was appointed to the Governing Board as a private sector representative for a term of one (1) year.6 During that time, she was also the President of the Book Suppliers Association of the Philippines (BSAP). She was on a hold-over capacity in the following year. On September 14, 1998, she was again appointed to the same position and for the same period of one (1) year.7 Part of her functions as a member of the Governing Board is to attend book fairs to establish linkages with international book publishing bodies. On September 29, 1997, she was issued by the Office of the President a travel authority to attend the Madrid International Book Fair in Spain on October 8-12, 1997.8 Based on her itinerary of travel,9 she was paid P139,199.0010 as her travelling expenses.
Unfortunately, petitioner was not able to attend the scheduled international book fair.
On February 16, 1998, Resident Auditor Rosario T. Martin advised petitioner to immediately return/refund her cash advance considering that her trip was canceled.11 Petitioner, however, failed to do so. On July 6, 1998, she was issued a Summary of Disallowances12 from which the balance for settlement amounted to P220,349.00. Despite said notice, no action was forthcoming from the petitioner.
On September 23, 1999, Dr. Nellie R. Apolonio, then the Executive Director of the NBDB, filed with the Ombudsman a complaint against petitioner for malversation of public funds and properties. She averred that despite the cancellation of the foreign trip, petitioner failed to liquidate or return to the NBDB her cash advance within sixty (60) days from date of arrival, or in this case from the date of cancellation of the trip, in accordance with government accounting and auditing rules and regulations. Dr. Apolonio further charged petitioner with violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 671313 for failure to file her Statement of Assets and Liabilities.
The Ombudsman found probable cause to indict petitioner for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019,14 as amended, and recommended the filing of the corresponding information.15 It, however, dismissed for insufficiency of evidence, the charge for violation of R.A. No. 6713.
That on or about October 8, 1997, or for sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Quezon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the aforenamed accused, a public officer, being then a member of the governing Board of the National Book Development Board (NBDB), while in the performance of her official and administrative functions, and acting with evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally, without any justifiable cause, and despite due demand by the Resident Auditor and the Executive Director of NBDB, fail and refuse to return and/or liquidate her cash advances intended for official travel abroad which did not materialize, in the total amount of P139,199.00 as of September 23, 1999, as required under EO No. 248 and Sec. 5 of COA Circular No. 97-002 thereby causing damage and undue injury to the Government.
The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 25867 and raffled to the First Division.
That on or about and during the period from October 8, 1997 to February 16, 1999, or for sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a high ranking officer, being a member of the Governing Board of the National Book Development Board and as such, is accountable for the public funds she received as cash advance in connection with her trip to Spain from October 8-12, 1997, per LBP Check No. 10188 in the amount of P139,199.00, which trip did not materialize, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, malverse, misappropriate, embezzle and convert to her own personal use and benefit the aforementioned amount of P139,199.00, Philippine currency, to the damage and prejudice of the government in the aforesaid amount.
During her arraignment in Criminal Case No. 25867, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, petitioner delivered to the First Division the money subject of the criminal cases, which amount was deposited in a special trust account during the pendency of the criminal cases.
That on or about and during the period from October 8, 1997 to February 16, 1999, or for sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a high ranking officer, being a member of the Governing Board of the National Book Development Board equated to Board Member II with a salary grade 28 and as such, is accountable for the public funds she received as case advance in connection with her trip to Spain from October 8-12, 1997, per LBP Check No. 10188 in the amount of P139,199.00, which trip did not materialize, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, malverse, misappropriate, embezzle and convert to her own personal use and benefit the aforementioned amount of P139,199.00, Philippine currency, to the damage and prejudice of the government in the aforesaid amount.
On October 10, 2000, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash Information,23 averring that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction to hear Criminal Case No. 25867 as the information did not allege that she is a public official who is classified as Grade "27" or higher. Neither did the information charge her as a co-principal, accomplice or accessory to a public officer committing an offense under the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction. She also averred that she is not a public officer or employee and that she belongs to the Governing Board only as a private sector representative under R.A. No. 8047, hence, she may not be charged under R.A. No. 3019 before the Sandiganbayan or under any statute which covers public officials. Moreover, she claimed that she does not perform public functions and is without any administrative or political power to speak of - that she is serving the private book publishing industry by advancing their interest as participant in the government's book development policy.
The fact that the accused does not receive any compensation in terms of salaries and allowances, if that indeed be the case, is not the sole qualification for being in the government service or a public official. The National Book Development Board is a statutory government agency and the persons who participated therein even if they are from the private sector, are public officers to the extent that they are performing their duty therein as such.
Insofar as the accusation is concerned herein, it would appear that monies were advanced to the accused in her capacity as Director of the National Book Development Board for purposes of official travel. While indeed under ordinary circumstances a member of the board remains a private individual, still when that individual is performing her functions as a member of the board or when that person receives benefits or when the person is supposed to travel abroad and is given government money to effect that travel, to that extent the private sector representative is a public official performing public functions; if only for that reason, and not even considering situation of her being in possession of public funds even as a private individual for which she would also covered by provisions of the Revised Penal Code, she is properly charged before this Court.
On November 15, 2000, the First Division accepted the consolidation of the criminal cases against petitioner and scheduled her arraignment on November 17, 2000, for Criminal Case No. 25898. On said date, petitioner manifested that she is not prepared to accept the propriety of the accusation since it refers to the same subject matter as that covered in Criminal Case No. 25867 for which the Sandiganbayan gave her time to file a motion to quash. On November 22, 2000, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information26 in Criminal Case No. 25898, by invoking her right against double jeopardy. However, her motion was denied in open court. She then filed a motion for reconsideration.
The offense is office-related because the money for her travel abroad was given to her because of her Directorship in the National Book Development Board.
Art. 222. Officers included in the preceding provisions. - The provisions of this chapter shall apply to private individuals who, in any capacity whatever, have charge of any insular, provincial or municipal funds, revenues, or property and to any administrator or depository of funds or property attached, seized or deposited by public authority, even if such property belongs to a private individual.
Likewise, the Motion to Quash the Information in Criminal Case No. 25898 on the ground of litis pendencia is denied since in this instance, these two Informations speak of offenses under different statutes, i.e., R.A. No. 3019 and the Revised Penal Code, neither of which precludes prosecution of the other.
Petitioner hinges the present petition on the ground that the Sandiganbayan has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction for not quashing the two informations charging her with violation of the Anti-Graft Law and the Revised Penal Code on malversation of public funds. She advanced the following arguments in support of her petition, to wit: first, she is not a public officer, and second, she was being charged under two (2) informations, which is in violation of her right against double jeopardy.
To substantiate her claim, petitioner maintained that she is not a public officer and only a private sector representative, stressing that her only function among the eleven (11) basic purposes and objectives provided for in Section 4, R.A. No. 8047, is to obtain priority status for the book publishing industry. At the time of her appointment to the NDBD Board, she was the President of the BSAP, a book publishers association. As such, she could not be held liable for the crimes imputed against her, and in turn, she is outside the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Notwithstanding that petitioner came from the private sector to sit as a member of the NBDB, the law invested her with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, so that the purpose of the government is achieved. In this case, the government aimed to enhance the book publishing industry as it has a significant role in the national development. Hence, the fact that she was appointed from the public sector and not from the other branches or agencies of the government does not take her position outside the meaning of a public office. She was appointed to the Governing Board in order to see to it that the purposes for which the law was enacted are achieved. The Governing Board acts collectively and carries out its mandate as one body. The purpose of the law for appointing members from the private sector is to ensure that they are also properly represented in the implementation of government objectives to cultivate the book publishing industry.
Thus, pursuant to the Anti-Graft Law, one is a public officer if one has been elected or appointed to a public office. Petitioner was appointed by the President to the Governing Board of the NDBD. Though her term is only for a year that does not make her private person exercising a public function. The fact that she is not receiving a monthly salary is also of no moment. Section 7, R.A. No. 8047 provides that members of the Governing Board shall receive per diem and such allowances as may be authorized for every meeting actually attended and subject to pertinent laws, rules and regulations. Also, under the Anti-Graft Law, the nature of one's appointment, and whether the compensation one receives from the government is only nominal, is immaterial because the person so elected or appointed is still considered a public officer.
Where, as in this case, petitioner performs public functions in pursuance of the objectives of R.A. No. 8047, verily, she is a public officer who takes part in the performance of public functions in the government whether as an employee, agent, subordinate official, of any rank or classes. In fact, during her tenure, petitioner took part in the drafting and promulgation of several rules and regulations implementing R.A. No. 8047. She was supposed to represent the country in the canceled book fair in Spain.
In fine, We hold that petitioner is a public officer. The next question for the Court to resolve is whether, as a public officer, petitioner is within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade "Grade '27'" and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
Per FY 1999 Personal Services Itemization, the Governing Board of NDBD is composed of one (1) Chairman (ex-officio), one (1) Vice-Chairman (ex-officio), and nine (9) Members, four (4) of whom are ex-officio and the remaining five (5) members represent the private sector. The said five members of the Board do not receive any salary and as such their position are not classified and are not assigned any salary grade.
Thus, based on the Amended Information in Criminal Case No. 25898, petitioner belongs to the employees classified as SG-28, included in the phrase "all other national and local officials classified as 'Grade 27' and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989."
We believe otherwise. Records show that the Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 25867 and 25898 refer to offenses penalized by different statues, R.A. No. 3019 and RPC, respectively. It is elementary that for double jeopardy to attach, the case against the accused must have been dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon valid information sufficient in form and substance and the accused pleaded to the charge.37 In the instant case, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the Information for violation of the Anti-Graft Law. She was not yet arraigned in the criminal case for malversation of public funds because she had filed a motion to quash the latter information. Double jeopardy could not, therefore, attach considering that the two cases remain pending before the Sandiganbayan and that herein petitioner had pleaded to only one in the criminal cases against her.
It is well settled that for a claim of double jeopardy to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) there is a complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction; (2) the same is filed before a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) there is a valid arraignment or plea to the charges; and (4) the accused is convicted or acquitted or the case is otherwise dismissed or terminated without his express consent.38 The third and fourth requisites are not present in the case at bar.
In view of the foregoing, We hold that the present petition does not fall under the exceptions wherein the remedy of certiorari may be resorted to after the denial of one's motion to quash the information. And even assuming that petitioner may avail of such remedy, We still hold that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED. Thequestioned Resolutions and Order of the Sandiganbayan are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
5 "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOK PUBLISHING INDUSTRY THROUGH THE FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A NATIONAL BOOK POLICY AND A NATIONAL BOOK DEVELOPMENT PLAN;" records, Vol. I (Crim. Case No. 25867), pp. 101-107.
6 Records, Vol. I (Crim. Case No. 25867), p. 90.
7 Records, Vol. I (Crim. Case No. 25867), pp. 91-92.
10 Per Check No. 10188-AY; id. at 125.
13 Otherwise known as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees."
14 Otherwise known as the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act."
15 Resolution dated February 18, 2000; records, Vol. I (Crim. Case No. 25867), pp. 5-10.
16 Records, Vol. II (Crim. Case No. 25867), pp. 1-2.
17 Resolution dated February 29, 2000; records, Vol. I, (Crim Case No. 25898), pp. 4-8.
18 Records, Vol. I (Crim Case No. 25898), pp. 1-2.
25 Composed of then Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena, Associate Justices Catalino R. CastaÃ±eda, Jr. and Gregory S. Ong.
28 Ariel Los BaÃ±os, et al. v. Joel Pedro, G.R. No. 173588, April 22, 2009.
29 Serana v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162059, January 22, 2008, 542 SCRA 224.
30 Newsweek, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, No. L-63559, May 30, 1986, 142 SCRA 171.
31 R.A. 8047, Sec. 8; records, Vol. I (Crim. Case No. 25867), pp. 103-104.
32 F.R. Mechem, A Treatise on the Law of Public Offices and Officers, Sec. 1.
33 R.A. No. 3019, Sec. 2 (b).
34 Revised Penal Code, Art. 203.
35 On June 11, 1978, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos promulgated Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1486 which created the Sandiganbayan. The Whereas Clause of the decree aimed to attain the highest norms of official conduct required of public officers and employees, based on the concept that public officers and employees shall serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency and shall remain at all times accountable to the People. On December 10, 1978, P.D. No. 1486 was amended by P.D. No. 1606 which expanded the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Thereafter, P.D. No. 1861 amended P.D. No. 1606 on March 23, 1983, which decree further altered the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction. On March 30, 1995, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7975 was approved, making succeeding amendments to P.D. No. 1606, which was again amended on February 5, 1997 by R.A. No. 8249. Section 4 of which further modified the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
36 Records, Vol. I (Crim Case No. 25898), p. 36.
37 Cabo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169509, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 264.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 

Art. 222
In fine
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 203
 v.