Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction Over Private Individuals in Marcos Ill-Gotten Wealth Cases

The Supreme Court has clarified that the Sandiganbayan can exercise jurisdiction over private individuals charged with corruption offenses, provided the cases are intimately connected to the recovery of ill-gotten wealth accumulated during the Marcos administration. In Disini v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 169823-24 and 174764-65, September 11, 2013), the Court affirmed that private persons may be prosecuted before the anti-graft court even if they are not public officers, as long as their cases fall under the coverage of the executive orders that created the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG).

The Case Against Herminio Disini

Herminio T. Disini, a close associate of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, was charged before the Sandiganbayan with two offenses. First, he was charged with corruption of public officials under Article 212 in relation to Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly giving gifts and shares of stock to President Marcos in exchange for securing contracts for the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant Project. Second, he was charged with violating Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, for allegedly receiving approximately $18 million from foreign contractors as kickbacks for securing government contracts.

Disini moved to quash the informations, arguing that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over him because he was a private individual, not a public officer. He also raised the defense of prescription, claiming that the offenses had already prescribed.

Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

The Supreme Court rejected Disini's arguments on jurisdiction. Under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8249, which amended the law creating the Sandiganbayan, the anti-graft court has exclusive original jurisdiction over three categories of cases. The third category covers "civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986."

The Court held that this third category does not require the accused to be a public officer. Executive Order No. 1 expressly authorized the PCGG to recover ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates, and close associates—without distinction as to their private or public status. Since Disini was alleged to be a close associate of Marcos, the Sandiganbayan properly took cognizance of the cases against him.

The Court also noted that the criminal cases were intertwined with Civil Case No. 0013, a PCGG-initiated civil action for reconveyance and reversion of alleged ill-gotten wealth. Because the criminal and civil cases involved the same transactions, it was unnecessary for the informations to expressly state that the charges involved the recovery of ill-gotten wealth.

Prescription Did Not Bar the Cases

On the issue of prescription, the Court applied the "blameless ignorance" doctrine. While the offenses were committed during the period from 1974 to February 1986, the Court held that the prescriptive period began to run only upon discovery of the offenses by the State.

The Court reasoned that during the Marcos regime, it was "well-nigh impossible" for the State to have known of the crimes because of the alleged connivance and conspiracy among public officials and beneficiaries. The unlawful transactions were discovered only through the exhaustive investigation conducted by the PCGG, which led to the filing of Civil Case No. 0013.

The Court further held that the filing of the criminal complaints with the Office of the Ombudsman on April 8, 1991 effectively interrupted the prescriptive period. Since only five years elapsed from the discovery of the offenses in 1986 to the filing of the complaints in 1991, the offenses had not prescribed.

Sufficiency of the Informations

The Court also upheld the sufficiency of the informations. Applying the "hypothetical admission" test, the Court found that the allegations, if admitted, would establish the essential elements of both offenses charged. For corruption of public officials, the information alleged that Disini offered gifts to President Marcos under circumstances that would make Marcos liable for direct bribery. For the violation of Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019, the information alleged that Disini exploited his close personal relation with Marcos to receive money from contractors having business with the government.

Practical Takeaways

• Private individuals can be tried by the Sandiganbayan in cases involving the recovery of Marcos ill-gotten wealth, even if they are not public officers or co-principals of public officers.
• The PCGG's mandate covers close associates of former President Marcos, not just public officials, provided the cases are connected to the recovery of ill-gotten wealth.
• Prescription runs from discovery, not from commission, when the offense was concealed through conspiracy and it was impossible for the State to discover it earlier.
• Filing a complaint for preliminary investigation interrupts prescription, whether the offense is penalized under the Revised Penal Code or a special law.
• The hypothetical admission test governs motions to quash; informations need only allege facts that, if admitted, would establish the elements of the offense.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.