People v. Javier
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Carolina R. Javier was appointed as a private sector representative to the Governing Board of the National Book Development Board (NBDB) under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8047. She was issued a travel authority to attend the Madrid International Book Fair in Spain, for which she received a cash advance of ₱139,199.00. The trip was canceled, but petitioner failed to return or liquidate the cash advance. Resident Auditor Rosario T. Martin advised her to return the money, and later, a Summary of Disallowances was issued. Dr. Nellie R. Apolonio, Executive Director of NBDB, filed a complaint with the Ombudsman for malversation of public funds and violation of R.A. No. 6713 for failure to file her Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Procedural History: The Ombudsman found probable cause to indict petitioner for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, leading to Criminal Case No. 25867 before the Sandiganbayan. The charge for violation of R.A. No. 6713 was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. Separately, the Commission on Audit charged petitioner with Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, resulting in Criminal Case No. 25898 before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner filed motions to quash the informations in both cases, arguing lack of jurisdiction over her as a private sector representative and violation of her right against double jeopardy. The Sandiganbayan denied these motions. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner sought to nullify the Sandiganbayan's orders denying her motions to quash, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. She contended that she is not a public officer and that the filing of two informations for the same subject matter violates her right against double jeopardy.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner, as a private sector representative to the NBDB Governing Board, is a public officer amenable to prosecution before the Sandiganbayan. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying her motions to quash the informations. Whether the filing of two separate informations for violation of R.A. No. 3019 and malversation of public funds violates petitioner's right against double jeopardy.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The questioned Resolutions and Order of the Sandiganbayan are affirmed. The Supreme Court held that petitioner is a public officer and that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over her. It also found no violation of the right against double jeopardy.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether petitioner is a public officer: The Court held that petitioner is a public officer. Although she was appointed from the private sector, her membership in the NBDB Governing Board meant she was invested with a portion of the sovereign functions of the government to achieve the State's objective of promoting the book publishing industry. The powers and functions vested in the Governing Board, as enumerated in R.A. No. 8047, partake of the nature of public functions. The Court cited the definition of a public office as the right, authority, and duty conferred by law, invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government to be exercised for the benefit of the public. Even if she did not receive a salary, Section 7 of R.A. No. 8047 provided for per diems and allowances, and the Anti-Graft Law considers individuals receiving even nominal compensation as public officers. Furthermore, the Revised Penal Code defines a public officer as any person who takes part in the performance of public functions in the Government. Petitioner's participation in drafting rules and regulations and her intended travel abroad for official purposes solidified her status as a public officer. On the issue of Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion: The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction. Pursuant to Section 4(g) of P.D. 1606, as amended, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over presidents, directors, or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations. The Court equated the position of a member of the NBDB Governing Board, even if from the private sector, to Board Member II, SG-28, which falls under "all other national and local officials classified as Grade '27' and higher" under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. The offense was deemed office-related because the cash advance was given to her due to her directorship in the NBDB. The Court found that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash, as the petitioner was properly charged before the Sandiganbayan. On the issue of double jeopardy: The Court ruled that petitioner's right against double jeopardy was not violated. For double jeopardy to attach, several requisites must concur, including a valid arraignment or plea to the charges and a conviction, acquittal, or dismissal of the case without the accused's consent. In this case, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the information for violation of the Anti-Graft Law but had not yet been arraigned for the malversation case. The two informations charged offenses penalized by different statutes (R.A. No. 3019 and the Revised Penal Code), and neither precluded prosecution of the other. Therefore, the third and fourth requisites for double jeopardy were not present.
Main Doctrine
A private sector representative appointed to a government board, performing public functions and receiving benefits or public funds in connection therewith, is considered a public officer amenable to prosecution before the Sandiganbayan for offenses related to such functions and funds. The denial of a motion to quash, when acting without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, may be a ground for certiorari, but generally, the accused should proceed to trial.