232) Icasiano v Sandiganbayan

February 17, 2018 | Author: Alfonso Miguel Lopez | Category: Double Jeopardy, Complaint, Judiciaries, Legal Procedure, Government Information
Share Embed Donate

Short Description

CONSTI2 Bill of RIghts Double Jeopardy...


G.R. No. 95642 May 28, 1992 Lopez, AMC AURELIO G. ICASIANO, JR., petitioner vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents Topic: Double Jeopardy Facts: 1. Romana Magbago filed an administrative complaint against Judge Icasiano for grave abuse of authority, manifest partiality and incompetence. a. The case arose from two orders of detention issued by the Judge against Magbago for her refusal to comply with fifth writ of execution b. However, Supreme Court dismissed this administrative case. 2. Meanwhile, Magabago also filed in the Ombudsman against Judge Icasiano for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (docketed as TBP 924) 3. Special Prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the case for lack of merit. Such recommendation was approved by the Tanodbayan. The resolution was released on April 1988. 4. However, Office of Tanodbayan received another complaint from Magbago which no was docketed as TBP 546. The date of filing is not shown but the case was among those transmitted to the newly created Sandiganbayan; and unfortunately, these records didn’t contain the records of the dismissal of TBP 924. 5. Prosecutor Cruz was assigned to investigate TBP 546 and he recommended filing of information in January 1990. Special Prosecution Officer adopted recommendation 6. Hence, an information was filed with the Sandiganbayan, docketed as Crim. Case 14563. 7. Icasiano filed a motion for reinvestigation on the ground that he has already been exonerated in Admin. Matter No. MTJ-87-81. Hence, the court ordered the prosecutor to look into administrative matter 8. Special Prosecutor Querubin responded that there were no records of such administrative matter. Hence, Sandiganbayan denied motion for reinvestigation because seeing that the special prosecutor had no

record, petitioner failed to present documents regarding the administrative matter. 9. Petitioner moved to quash the information on the following grounds: a. Double jeopardy because he was already exonerated in MTJ87-81 b. No cause of action c. No jurisdiction 10. Sandiganbayan denied motion to quash: a. MTJ-87-81 cannot serve as defense for double jeopardy as it is an admin case and the instant case is criminal b. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction for violations of Anti Graft and Corrupts Practices Act. Issue: W/N double jeopardy applies in this case Held: Yes. Sandiganbayan should continue proceedings. 1. Distinction between an administrative and criminal case should be upheld. One is not a bar to the other. 2. An Administrative procedure need not strictly adhere to technical rules and substantial evidence is sufficient. A Criminal Case in the Sandiganbayan, although may involve same acts as in the administrative case, requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. 3. To avail of the double jeopardy, the following requisites must concur: a. a valid complaint or information; b. a competent court; c. a valid arraignment; d. the defendant had pleaded to the charge; and e. the defendant was acquitted, or convicted, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The temporary restraining order issued earlier is LIFTED; the Sandiganbayan is ordered to proceed with Criminal Case No. 14563.

View more...


Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.