Case Digest: Ramiscal Jr vs SANDIGANBAYAN and People of the Philippines GR Nos 172476-99

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Ramiscal Jr vs SANDIGANBAYAN and People of the Philippines

GR Nos 172476-99                                                                         September 15, 2010

Facts:
Ramiscal Jr (Ramiscal) was a retired officer of AFP and the former president of AFP-Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS). During his incumbency, the BOD of AFP-RSBS approved the acquisition of 15,020 sq. m. of land for development as housing projects. On August 1, 1997 AFP-RSBS as represented by Ramiscal Jr., and Flaviano the attorney-in-fact of 12 individual vendors executed and signed a bilateral Deed of Sale (1st Deed) over the subject property at the agreed price of P 10,500.00 per sq. m. After the payment @ P 10,500.00 per sq. m., Flaviano executed and signed a unilateral Deed of Sale (2nd Deed) over the same property with a purchase price of P 3,000.00 per sq. m. Thereafter the 2nd Deed was presented by Flaviano for registration which became the basis of the Certificate of Title of the said property.

Ramiscal Jr filed his first Motion for Reconsideration date February 12, 1999 with a supplemental motion dated May 28, 1999 regarding the findings of the Ombudsman. With this, a panel of prosecutors was tasked to review the records of the case, they found out that Ramiscal Jr., indeed participated in an affixed his signature on the contracts and found probable cause. The Ombudsman acted positively on the findings of the prosecutor and scheduled the arraignment of Ramiscal Jr. Howver, Ramiscal Jr., refused to enter a plea for petitioner on the ground that there is a pending resolution of his second Motion for Reconsideration.

Issue:
Whether or not the second Motion for Reconsideration is valid and should hold his arraignment.

Whether or not there is probable cause to file a case for violation of Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and falsification of public documents.

Ruling:
No, Sec 7 of Rule 11 of the Rules provides that only one motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation of an approved order or resolution shall be allowed xxxxx the filing of a motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation shall not bar the filling of the corresponding information in Court on the basis of the finding of probable cause in the resolution subject of the motion.

The arraignment may be suspended under Sec. 11 of Rule 116 of the Rules of Court are: unsoundness of mind, prejudicial question and a pending petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor in the DOJ in which the suspension shall not exceed 60 days. Ramiscal Jr., failed to show that any of the instances constituting a valid ground for suspension of arraignment obtained in this case.

With respect to the finding of probable cause, it is the Ombudsman who has the full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in the Sandiganbayan, once the case has been filed with the said court, it is the Sandiganbayan, and no longer the Ombudsman which has full control of the case. Ramiscal Jr., failed to establish that Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion, thus, there is probable cause in the filing of the case.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Ebralinag vs The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu GR No 95770 95887

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Ebralinag, et al. vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu GR Nos. 95770 and 95887                                                     March 1, 1993 Facts: The petitioners (Ebralinag, et al.) are elementary and high school students who were expelled from their classes by public school authorities for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge as required by RA 1265 and Department Order No. 8 of the DepEd. Jehovah's Witnesses admittedly teach their children not to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge for they believe that those are "acts of worship" or "religious devotion” which they "cannot conscientiously give . . . to anyone or anything except God". They feel bound by the Bible's command to "guard ourselves from idols — 1 John 5:21". They consider the flag as an image or idol representing the State (p. 10, Rollo). They think the action of th
Read more

Tax Case Digest: ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita GR No 168056

By PactaSuntServanda -
ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita G.R. No. 168056                                       September 1, 2005 Facts: ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., filed a petition for prohibition o questioning the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).  Section 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and properties; Section 5 imposes a 10% VAT on importation of goods; and Section 6 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of properties; These provisions contain a provision which authorizing the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective January 1, 2006, after specified conditions have been satisfied. Issues: Whether or not there is a violation of Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution. Whether or not there is undue delegation of legislative power in violation of Article VI Sec 28(2) of the
Read more

Case Digest: Estrada vs Escritor 492 SCRA 1 AM No P-02-1651

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Estrada vs. Escritor, 492 SCRA 1, A.M. No. P-02-1651,  August 4, 2003 Facts: Escritor is the Court Interpreter of RTC Branch 253 of Las Piñas City. Estrada requested an investigation of respondent for cohabiting with a man not her husband and having a child with the latter while she was still married.Estrada believes  that Escritor is committing a grossly immoral act which tarnishes the image of the judiciary, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed  therein as it might appear that the court condones her act. Escritor admitted the above-mentioned allegations but denies any liability for the alleged gross immoral conduct for the reason that she is a member of the religious sect Jehovah’s Witness and Watch Tower Society and her conjugal arrangement is approved and is in conformity with her religious beliefs. She further alleged that they executed a “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness” in accordance with her religion which allows members of Jehovah’s Witnesses who h
Read more