Republic of the PhilippinesSANDIGANBA YAN

Quezon City

SIXTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

SB-16-CRM-0507

-Versus-PRESENT:

PONFERRADA,,f., ChairpersonHERRERA,&MIRANDA, JJ.

ROGELIO NARV ASA QUINO, ET AL.,Accused.

Promulgated:

JAN 12 2~x ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -x

RESOLUTION----------

PONFERRADA, J.:

This refers to the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION(oj theResolution dated 14 November 20/6) dated November 21, 2016, of accusedRogelio Narvasa Quifio, Cecilia Quifio-Rejas and Antonio Narvasa Quifio,Jr. (accused-movants) of the Court's Resolution of November 14, 2016,which denied their motion to quash; the prosecution's Opposition theretodated November 24, 2016; and accused-movants' Reply dated December 5,2016.

After study, and it appearing that the issues and arguments posed bythe accused-movants in support of their motion for reconsideration are but arehash and repetition of the same issues and arguments raised in their motionto quash which were already passed upon and considered in the assailedresolution, and there being no new issue(s) or matter(s) of substance

RESOLUTION - PEOPLE v. ROGELIO NARVASA QUINO, ET AL.,.S8-16-CRM -0507

Page 2

presented that would warrant a reversal or modification thereof, the Courtfinds no cogent reason to reconsider its previous action on the matter.

In this connection, it is well to re-state that as explained in Pacifico C.Velasco vs. Sandiganbayan.' there are two (2) ways by which a publicofficial violates Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, as amended, in the performanceof his functions, namely: (a) by causing undue injury to any party, includingthe Government; or (b) by giving any private party any unwarrantedbenefits, advantage or preference. The accused may be charged undereither way or under both. In this case, the accused-movants are chargedonly for the "unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference" given toaccused-movant Antonio N. Quifio, Jr. and not for causing undue injury toany party, including the government. Of course, if proven it is enough toconvict and punished the accused-movants for violation of Section 3(e) ofR.A. 3019, as amended.

That the acts of accused-movants Rogelio N. Quifio and CeciliaQuiria-Rejas in "upgrading oftsic) accused Antonio 's salary grade from SG11 to SG 15, and thereafter to SG 18" would cause damage and/or prejudiceto the government would refer only to civil liability. It must be rememberedthat a person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable/ unless thereis a finding in the criminal action that the act or omission from which thecivil liability may arise did not exist.'

Moreover, the claim of accused-movants that since they are chargedwith violation of Section 3 (e) ofR.A. 3019, as amended, in an Informationwhich is (allegedly) bereft of any factual allegations that they committed aprohibited act in connection with the Salary Grade (SG) adjustment ofaccused-movant Antonio Quifio showing the "intimate relation between theoffice of the offender and the discharge of official duties," renders the saidInformation fatally defective incapable of charging an offense because itmerely states that they allegedly committed the offense "in relation tooffice" and "in the performance of official function." Hence, from theInformation itself, no prohibited act was alleged to have been committed inviolation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 that would comply with the ydelement thereof, and therefore, should be quashed.

Such claim is without merit. As held in Lacson v. Executive Secretary,Sandiganbayan, et al.," for an offense to fall under the exclusive jurisdictionof the Sandiganbayan under the provision of Section 4 of R.A. 8249, thefollowing requisites must concur:

I G.R. No. 160991, February 28, 2005 citing Librada M. Cabrera, et al v. Sandiganbayan, 441 SCRA 377.2 Article 100, Revised Penal Code.3 Sec. 2, par. 4, Rule 11 I, Rules of Criminal Procedure.430 I SCRA 298 [1999J.

RESOLUTION - PEOPLE v . ROGELlO NARVASA QUINO, ET AL.,.SB-16-CRM-OS07

Page 3

(1) the offense committed is a violation of raj R.A. 3019, asamended, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, [bJ R.A. 1379,the law on ill-gotten wealth, [cJ Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book11 of the Revised Penal Code or the law on bribery, [dJ ExecutiveOrder Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14-A, issued in 1986 or sequestration cases,or [eJ other offenses or felonies whether simple or complex with othercrimes;

(2) the offender committing the offenses in items [a], [bJ, [cJand [eJ is a public official or employee holding any of the positionsenumerated in paragraph a of Section 4; and

(3) the offense committed is in relation to the office.

Based on the foregoing jurisprudence and considering that theaccused-movants, who are public officers, are charged with violation ofSection 3(e) of R.A. 3019, as amended, the allegations in the Informationthat they committed the offense charged "in relation to office" is sufficient.On this point, it bears stressing that the factual allegations showing the"intimate relation between the office of the offender and the discharge ofofficial duties" are necessary only when the offender public official ischarged, not with the commission of the above-enumerated offenses thatmay be committed by public officers, but with the commission of commoncrimes wherein it would be indispensable to allege in the Information howand why the acts charged were committed in relation to office or intimatelyconnected with the discharge of official functions which must be sufficientlyalleged in order for the Sandiganbayan to have original jurisdiction over thecase.'

Finally, it must be reiterated, however, that the matter of whether ornot accused-movants are guilty of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, asamended, as charged in the information is subject to the evidence to bepresented by the parties in the trial of this case.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration of the accused-movants is hereby DENIED and the assailed Resolution of November 14,2016, is reiterated. The arraignment of the accused-movants shall proceed asscheduled on February 23, 2017, at 8:30 in the morning.

SO ORDERED.

RODOLF~NFERRADAAssociate Justice

Chairperson

5 Ibid.

RESOLUTION - PEOPLE v . ROGELIO NARVASA QUINO, ET AL.,.SB-\6-CRM-0507

Page

WECONCUR ...

.MlRANDAAssociate Justice

4