RODRIGUEZ v.

SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 141710 March 3, 2004

Criminal Procedure: Subject matter jurisdiction – Crimes and officials under Sandiganbayan jurisdiction;
Forum shopping; Due process and right to speedy trial

FACTS:

1. In this petition for certiorari, Petitioners Evelyn Rodriguez and Andres Abonita Jr. are assailing three
separate Orders of the Sandiganbayan (issued on the same date, Sept. 17, 2000) denying petitioners’ motion
to quash the second amended information, denying the motion to defer arraignment, and entering a plea of
not guilty for petitioners in light of their refusal to plead to the information.

2. On September 24, 1996, acting upon an information that rampant illegal logging activities have been going
on in different areas of Taytay, Palawan, a joint team composed of the Economic Intelligence and
Investigation Bureau (EIIB), the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO), the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Tiniguiban Command, the Bantay Palawan, and the Philippine Marines
confiscated freshly cut/processed ipil lumber at Sitio Maypa, Barangay Pancol, Taytay.

The cutting and sawing of the lumber, which were alleged to have been done under the supervision of Pancol
Barangay Captain Pedro Samaniego upon orders of herein petitioner Mayor Evelyn Rodriguez and
Association of Barangay Captains President Roberto Rodriguez, were without proper permit or license.

3. All the confiscated lumber were hauled inside the Rural Agriculture Center (RAC) Compound of Taytay
and left under the custody of 2nd Lt. Ernan Libao.

On September 25, 1997, Barangay Captain Rodriguez appeared at the RAC Compound demanding the
release of the lumber by presenting a letter-request addressed to the CENRO to salvage old cut timber, duly
indorsed by Mayor Rodriguez. As the request did not bear the approval of the CENRO, it was denied.

On October 5, 1997, Pancol Barangay Captain Pedro Samaniego and the other herein petitioner, Igang
Barangay Captain Andres Abonita, Jr., went to the RAC Compound upon orders of Mayor Rodriguez to haul
the lumber to the Municipal Hall, but the officer-in-charge refused to release the same without the advice of
EIIB authorities.

On the same date, acting upon the orders of Mayor Rodriguez, Barangay Captain Abonita returned to the
RAC Compound accompanied by two fully armed policemen and there forcibly took possession, hauled, and
transferred the lumber to the Municipal Hall of Taytay.

4. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman-Luzon filed an information for violation of Section 1(b) P.D. 1829
on December 8, 1998 against petitioners before the Sandiganbayan. A warrant of arrest was accordingly
issued against petitioners on December 14, 1998.

5. The Information against the petitioners were amended two more times, on April 8, 1999 and December 3,
1999, and during the scheduled arraignment of petitioners on January 17, 2000, the Sandiganbayan issued
in open court the assailed separate orders.
ISSUE(s):

1. W/N the pendency of the preliminary investigation of the case which dragged on for a couple of years is
unreasonable or unjustifiable and violates petitioners’ constitutional rights to due process as accused, thereby
constituting as a ground for dismissal of the information under Sec. 13, in relation to Section 7 of R.A. 8493
(The Speedy Trial Act of 1998); [NO]

2. W/N the simultaneous filing by the Ombudsman of two informations against petitioners, one before the
Sandiganbayan and the other before the Regional Trial Court in Puerto Princesa City involving the same
subject matter, constitutes forum shopping expressly prohibited under the Supreme Court Revised Circular
No. 28-91; [YES as to RTC but as a separate action, and NO as to Sandiganbayan]

3. W/N the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case since petitioners are not tasked
with the enforcement and implementation of P.D. No. 705 (REVISED FORESTRY CODE OF THE
PHILIPPINES) as neither of them are law enforcement officers or prosecutors but are mere executive officials
of their respective local government units with entirely different official functions and as such, the accusation
against them is not in relation to their office [YES]

HOLDING/RATIO:

1. Three offices - Provincial Prosecutor of Palawan (three months), Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon (eight
months), and Office of the Ombudsman (around two months) – passed upon the records of the case for the
period of preliminary investigation but did not exceed two years, and therefore cannot be deemed to have
violated petitioners constitutionally guaranteed rights to procedural due process and to a speedy disposition
of cases.

2. Petitioners’ contend forum shopping on the part of the Ombudsman by filing the same information before
the Sandiganbayan and the RTC of Puerto Princesa, Palawan in violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 28-
91 (Additional Requisites for Petitions filed with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals to Prevent
Forum Shopping or Multiple Filing of Petitions and Complaints).

If indeed the same information for violation of Section 1(b) of P.D. 1829 was filed by the Office of the
Ombudsman through the Special Prosecutor with the Sandiganbayan on December 8, 1988, while the
information before the RTC was allegedly filed on February 24, 1999, then, if there is any case to be
dismissed for forum shopping, that case should be the one before the RTC, as it was the second action filed.

3. Petitioners are not charged for violation of P.D. 705 (Forestry Code) but of P.D. 1829 (obstruction of
justice). RA 8249 (Sandiganbayan law), which amended PD 1606, provides that as long as one (or more) of
the accused is an official of the executive branch occupying position otherwise classified as Grade 27 and
higher of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989, the Sandiganbayan exercises exclusive
original jurisdiction over offenses or felonies committed by public officials whether simple or complexed with
other crimes committed by the public officials and employees in relation to their office.

For purposes of vesting jurisdiction with the Sandiganbayan, the crux of the issue is whether petitioner Mayor
Rodriguez, who holds a position of Salary Grade 27 under the Local Government Code of 1991, committed
the offense charged in relation to her office.
Even though public office is not an essential element of the offense of obstruction of justice under Section
1(b) of P.D. 1829, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense alleged to have been
committed by petitioner Rodriguez are such that the offense may not have been committed had said petitioner
not held the office of the mayor. Mayor Rodriguez, who is tasked to exercise general and operational control
and supervision over the local police forces, used her influence, authority and office to call and command
members of the municipal police of Taytay to haul and transfer the lumber which was still subject of an
investigation for violation of P.D. 705.

4. There being no flaw or infirmity in the amended information, the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the order of January 17, 2000,
denying petitioners motion to quash.

The orders of the Sandiganbayan denying the motion to defer arraignment and entering a plea of not guilty
for petitioners in light of their refusal to plead were accordingly rendered without any grave abuse of
discretion.

Petition DISMISSED for lack of merit.