People v. Sandiganbayan (First Division)
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Office of the Ombudsman filed three separate cases before the Sandiganbayan (SBN): Criminal Case No. 26558 for plunder against former President Estrada and others; Criminal Case No. 26565 for illegal use of alias against Estrada; and Criminal Case No. 26566 for indirect bribery against herein private respondent Jose Jaime Policarpio Jr. These cases were raffled to different divisions of the SBN. Procedural History: Petitioner filed separate Motions to consolidate Criminal Case Nos. 26565 and 26566 with Criminal Case No. 26558. The Fifth Division granted the motion for Criminal Case No. 26565, but the First Division denied the motion for Criminal Case No. 26566. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to nullify the Order of the First Division of the Sandiganbayan dated June 28, 2001, which denied the Motion to Consolidate Criminal Case No. 26566 (indirect bribery) with Criminal Case No. 26558 (plunder).
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan (First Division) gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied petitioner’s Motion to Consolidate the trials of Criminal Case No. 26566 (indirect bribery case) and Criminal Case No. 26558 (plunder case), considering the potential for conflicting factual findings. Whether petitioner is guilty of forum shopping.
Ruling
The Petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to consolidate. Furthermore, the petitioner is guilty of forum shopping.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the Motion to Consolidate: The consolidation of criminal cases is a matter of judicial discretion, governed by Section 22 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court and Section 2 of Rule XII of the SBN Revised Internal Rules. The requisites for consolidation, as laid down in jurisprudence, include that the actions arise from the same act, event or transaction, involve the same or like issues, and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence, provided that a joint trial will not prejudice the substantial rights of any party. In this case, the Sandiganbayan correctly ruled that consolidation would have unduly exposed the private respondent to unrelated testimonies, delayed the resolution of the indirect bribery case, muddled the issues, and subjected him to the inconveniences of a lengthy and complicated legal battle in the plunder case. Moreover, supervening events, such as the testimonies sought to be introduced having already been heard in the plunder case, rendered consolidation inadvisable. The Sandiganbayan did not evade or refuse to perform a positive duty enjoined by law, nor did it exercise its power arbitrarily or despotically. Therefore, no grave abuse of discretion was committed. On the issue of forum shopping: The petition is dismissed on the ground of forum shopping. The petitioner, in its Verification/Certification against forum-shopping, represented that there was no other case pending in any tribunal involving the same cause and parties. However, while the instant petition was pending, the petitioner filed an Urgent Motion for Consolidation before the Sandiganbayan, raising the same issues and praying for the same remedy as in the Supreme Court petition. This act clearly constitutes forum shopping, which is defined as the repetitive availing of several judicial remedies in different venues, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions, essential facts and circumstances, and raising substantially the same issues and involving exactly the same parties. The violation of the prohibition against forum-shopping is a ground for summary dismissal of the petition.
Main Doctrine
The consolidation of cases is addressed to the sound discretion of judges, and unless the exercise of such discretion has been gravely abused, an appellate court will not disturb their findings and conclusions thereon. Furthermore, the filing of a motion for consolidation while a petition assailing a prior denial of consolidation is pending before the Supreme Court constitutes forum shopping.