ERNESTO NAVALLO, vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 97214
- Promulgated: 1994-07-16
- Ponente: Vitug, J.
Doctrine
The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over crimes committed by public officers embraced in Title VII of the Revised Penal Code.
Custodial investigation means questioning by law enforcement after a person has been taken into custody or significantly deprived of freedom; ordinary audit examinations are not custodial investigations.
Findings of fact by the trial court are entitled to great respect on appeal and should not be disturbed absent clear disregard of the evidence affecting the result.
Facts
An information charging petitioner with malversation (Article 217, par. 4, RPC) was filed on 11 May 1978 with the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Norte (Crim. Case No. 299).
The Sandiganbayan found accused Ernesto Navallo guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal for malversation and imposed an indeterminate sentence, perpetual special disqualification, a fine, and ordered restitution to the Government.
The petition raised four issues: Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction despite prior filing in the CFI; double jeopardy from prior RTC arraignment; whether petitioner was under custodial investigation when signing an audit certification; and whether guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court defined custodial investigation as questioning initiated by law enforcement after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of freedom in any significant way and held that a normal audit is not custodial investigation.
Issues
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan acquired jurisdiction to try and decide the offense filed against petitioner despite an earlier information filed with the then Court of First Instance of Surigao del Norte.
Whether or not double jeopardy set in when petitioner was arraigned by the Regional Trial Court on 18 July 1985.
Whether or not petitioner was under custodial investigation when he signed the certification prepared by State Auditing Examiner Leopoldo Dulguime.
Whether or not the guilt of petitioner has been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt as to warrant his conviction.
Ruling
The Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over crimes by public officers under Title VII of the RPC and thus acquired jurisdiction to try the offense; the decision of the Sandiganbayan is affirmed.
Double jeopardy did not bar the proceeding; the petition is dismissed and conviction stands.
Petitioner was not under custodial investigation when he signed the audit certification; a normal audit does not constitute custodial interrogation under Sec. 12, Art. III.
The Court found the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt; trial court findings are accorded high respect and were not clearly disregarded, so conviction is upheld.
Keywords
G.R. No. 97214, Article 217, paragraph 4, Revised Penal Code, Presidential Decree No. 1606, Sandiganbayan, original and exclusive jurisdiction, public officers, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code, provisional liberty, property bail bond, arraignment, motion to quash, jurisdiction, double jeopardy, Collecting and Disbursing Officer, preliminary audit examination, shortage, Report of Examination, restitution, unliquidated cash advances, guilty beyond reasonable doubt