Sandigan denies mayor’s bid to dismiss case

The court ruled that the simultaneous filing of two separate informations allegedly arising from the same transaction does not constitute double jeopardy. #FranciscoMambaJr

Mayor Mamba moved to dismiss the informations against him alleging that the offenses charged comprise only a single continuing offense, in violation of his right against double jeopardy.

The Sandiganbayan Fifth Division has denied the motion of Tuao, Cagayan Mayor Fransisco Mamba Jr. to dismiss the graft charges filed against him in relation to the allegedly anomalous purchase of fertilizers in 2004.

According to the Sandiganbayan decision dated 3 October 2019, the motion was junked for lack of merit.

Mamba moved to dismiss the informations against him alleging that the offenses charged comprise only a single continuing offense, in violation of his right against double jeopardy.

Mamba said the two informations filed against him in relation to the alleged anomaly cover two payments of P3,301,982 and P1,842,543 made to Feshan Phils. Inc. for the purchase of 3,333 bottles of Bio-Nature Liquid Organic Fertilizer at P1,500 per bottle for a total amount of P402,000,500.

He said the same constitute only a single continuing offense involving two acts of payment for the same purpose.

Philippine law states that double jeopardy is committed when the same case is charged against a person whose case is already terminated either by acquittal or conviction.

The prosecution rebutted Mamba’s argument.

“Allegedly, double jeopardy attaches when a person is charged with an offense and the case is terminated either by acquittal or conviction or in any manner without the consent of the accused, so that the latter cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense.”

“Here, the accused had not been placed in jeopardy by the mere filing of Informations in SB-19-CRM-0048 and SB-19-CRM- 0049 that involve two separate acts of the accused in giving unwarranted benefits to Feshan Phils., Inc.,” it argued.

The Court ruled that contrary to the accused’s claim, the simultaneous filing of two separate informations allegedly arising from the same transaction does not constitute double jeopardy.

It also said that the determination of whether the offense charged comprise a single contiuing offense, is evidentiary in nature and should be addressed in a full blown trial.

“It therefore appears premature for this Court to rule on whether delito continuado (continuous crime) exists in these cases.”

“Such issue is evidentiary in character and cannot be simply determined in a motion to dismiss,” it said.

Earlier, Mamba filed a motion to quash due to the alleged inordinate delay of inaction incurred by the Office of the Ombudsman that allegedly trampled upon his right to speedy trial. The Court, however, denied his motion in a resolution issued on 5 August for lack of merit.

Associate Justice Maryann Corpus-Mañalac penned the decisison, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Rafael Lagos and Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega.