REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES^attiiganbapanQuezon City ■ K ■,}tM';,V',,-3T '-t.rT'TA'^a

r.s- ^^ '-cI

FnilRTH DIVlSIQi

MINUTES of the proceedings held on 9 Maf§||p6l 8v .;• ;./: • ■ r-:

Present:

Hon. ALEX L. QUIROZHon. REYNALDO P. GRUZHon. BAYANl H. JACINTO

Chairpersonliis^pdlate d ustidpAssociate Justice

The following resolution was adopted;

yV' :rv-'.'fa-fVF^P

. .-.i •,"•■ <■ 4

Criminal Case No. SB-13-CRM-0597Disini, etal.

.9P^bple Hermlnjp-* ". r v.\.'

This resolves accused Jesus ;P.-4)i^|l4l1fCf'fsl^i|^Omnibus Motion (Fbr the issuance of%^i|^ah|fjfvfn/^

Disini argues that the inirnuniiy granie^fio nini uy " 'c'Government under the Immunity Agreemehtthat tho Suf^erifif^^in Disini v. Sandiganbayan^ he\d to bb A^tid ^nb bparties should also apply to the present orib^inal case. He ddrv^^that he is being charged in the Informatioii with oonspiringL^^^^^^other accused to induce former President Ferdindnd ^acquire financial interest in

dOS-^'pi fS::;

runs counter to the terms of the " — ■■— ■he cannot be prosecuted forr^ating to or arising out of.x x x i-v-'j ■---. ' r ,- - ; . ■ ■ ^P Disini or any company in which Her^mtoi^ T Disim^interest prior to July 1, 1984[.]"

rL;yj

Citina the case of Tanchanco v Saoci^anbayanf, DisW^that the Court lacks jurisdiction to try blip due to the Timh^^1 Records, pp. 443-456.2 id., pp. 487-489.3 021 SCRA415(2010).M76 SGRA202 (2005).

W.

RESOLUTION

PP vs. Disini, et al.Case No. SB-13-CRM-0597

Page 2 of 5

o

, ■ -.1

" i.

■j J- r';;/ar ■J"*:-.

_ _ as'alceaSfaffirmed by the Supreme Court en feanc ■

Disini prays that the Court; (1) issuel % psfhiQhenfc^against the Republic of the Philippines a(|d|a1|-fl^^^proceeding with the case; (2) quash the lof^tr^tlM idate^^2013; (3) quash the Warrant of Arrest datecjl^ lPM^^hiber 20^1^^^the hold departure order dated 17 NoveiTibj^rv|fWT;ia^the present proceedings against hina pehdjhg lhe irjesqlutid^^^^Omnibus Motion. ^ :: v,; ;

In Its Comment/Opposition, the prosediatipn counters thafv. Sandigsnbaysn does not apply to thS fjlF^sphtvcase ephsidering;that the issues in the former case involfev the authority^^ ^^p^^^^^^Presidential Commission on Good Goyerrtipent (PCGG) td-revoke;and nullify the Immunity Agreement betj^w^thS Republic arip^K^and the Court's alleged grave abuse ofDisini's motion to quash subpoena eddi^eeep tp himi \Arti|© 'die;;present case involves the inducement bf; the causing ofPresident Ferdinand E. Marcos to acquire: flnartdal intereis^^domestic private corporations that were : controlled by Her^^^Management & Investment Corporation. -

"T ■ r + '+

: s.'

^ ' i- li" ̂ V-!

- r- ? V* ,» ' <* IL*- hi

The prosecution also claims that the; present c©se ,yW^instituted and the Information filed by the pfTice of the Omhudsfriaci'iiunder the strength of the Decision of the Supreme Court in thp^^i,,,p^ssof Republic v. Des/erfo® where the Suprerhe: Court remandedCase No. 093-1374, the same one involved in this case, for filing df ;the proper Information. ' '•■rV'-

The motion is meritorious.

The relevant portions of paragraph 2 of the Irnrrtuniiy, ; Hgip

"jA

r •

quoted as follows

institute, prosecute or maintain any erimiital x x x proceedipflXXX against Jesus P. Disini, for or in cdohectipji with X x x anyconduct directly or indirectly relating to or arising out ofJesus P. Disini's former employment by HerminiO; P. Disini Orany company in which Herminio t Disini oWhed arty intereetprior to July 1,1984, x x x. and it further agfees that It Shall pOtuse, directly or indirectly, against JeSus P. Disini,

512SCRA57(2007).

".'f

"y-r'M: ■ . ,"i -7- ..y.'t

1 • - " ■■

%

RESOLUTION - ■ \PP vs. Disini, et al. '

rtrJv^

Case No. SB-13-CRM-0597

Page 3 of 5

-X

;

. > • ' f :|: ■ :|S:';information, lead or document obtained jrSfrtftirft^WufeulnfcJ^'l.' ;:;'?^this agreement; (Emphasis supplied) ; '

^ • Jit,

The question that must be resolved:^;:thev^bui|^^^terms of the immunity Agreement prohibitir^:lhe Re^bb|id;lrbiMH||j|'^any criminal case against Disini involyingydny; cohducj; di|^^indirectly relating to or arising out of -Shiplpy^Herminio P. Disini or any company in which);ififefminio T. pisiniSpyw3|p^^^^any interest prior to July 1, 1984 cover thg -ect with which .pisii!ii;;;i|^:-.sr|s^charged in the Information? ^

The Court replies in the affirmative.: ' H

, I- -'f**

That on or about March: 11,: la^M'spmtee: pr|w§^subsequent thereto, In MakatI .City, ^jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,:aGCUs^d.--.Herrhiriib:Tthen Senior Vice President and Genera|j|!p|in^l;: and Jesus T; ; : ' i pDisini, Angelo \A Manahan, Dominicd;:9>f|?'i^. J®"^'Alfredo M. Velayo, Officers of Herdis: Mah|g^^ Investrnepf;. ) : !Corporation (formerly Herdis (iroup, lnG.iv; ;a loc^l.conspiring and confederating together, did theh and^there willfully,- -unlawfully and criminally induce or cause : fbitner ;Preside|t:: yFerdinand E. Marcos to acquireTinanciallht^st :in:two domestic ' ̂orivate corporations that are controlled by HPrdis Managemeht , f sSi • 1 /-> H\ TU..% C««rrt»/ r^/^rr»r*rQ+ir»n /TPfi^piivdiw ov/i pwi awwi iw wiiu«fc wiiw wwt 'J;' ' ̂ ^

Investment Corporation: 1) The Energy G^pration fTECy^ for■SM

value of Php40 million; and 2) Vulcan Industriar .and Mining .Corporation (VIMC), for 2.5 billion of its shares of stocks at: par ■value of PhpO.01 each or a total value of Php25 million, of whichthe former President Was prohibited by law from having interest, to ;the damage and prejudice of the government and the publicinterest. . : ^

CONTRARY TO LAW.

It is at once apparent that the ai^ of -lhdMcing or bausingloiiif#^^^President Ferdinand Edralin Marcos to acquire financialttivo (2) local corporations that are controlled vby Herdis& Investment Corporation (formerly Herdis;;©roup, Inc.) offormer President was prohibited by law Trpm having intereststated in the Information, amounts to a: conduct that is dirOctlyj^jgpp^indirectly related to or arose out of Disinils: former employfneil :;^^Herminio P Disini or any company in which^Herrninid1■ Distfp»i1i^^any interest prior to July 1, 1984. This beirig the ca^.ei th^ ,l|fesenT;.(g,;^^^^criminal case is dismissible insofar as Disihi is concerned dd6 to li^.immunity as provided in the Immunity Agreement. , ' it' ®

• ' ■ ■i.-' : f

, V* 5 y'ssM

:

. ' i fl '>0'^PP vs. Disini, et al. ' . . ̂RESOLUTION

PP vs. Disini, e

O

Case No. SB-13^CRM.0597 1 Tu^ym

, . t ^yt . ■ • ■ . -.■ » ' Ii • « ^4•« V. .• /- ; U , / ,^1. i I . -•' - -4

Page 4 of 5 • . , f;

X - X ' ' '- '' r • • ■-

I lie \_/vJ\_|| \_ CliOw LCll\ew JU^Iwldl I IwUlww . ■ w^i' til' I vr I'P.i ■■><■.■ i w . ■ V ' 'V7

Division of the Court in its Dec/s/on in Rep1i)tj//c'ofHerminio T. Disini, et al., docketed: aii'iiiviiu^promuigated on 11 April 2012, as regartis#iiitifi0i)Mii»?^te'J^

X X X Atty. Jesus P. Disini, a lawyer l(ii^ia; Se^ ■ :i;v}JKv|;J|feHdefendant Herminio Disini, was an exe,cuti\rSBj|n. mgroup of companies from 1971 through, fifeliraS: a,Senior,Vice President of Herdis Group. Ipc- wheffi^ ' u ̂1984. At various times, he was a pieitiSar of ; th^

. y.'-.-iJ'-rfi.tM

directors of Several known iDlsin^owri^d;'^ebhtpdnles^^ ^^/W^ -included Power Contractors, Inc., Asia fpiJftneS. fePhilippines, Inc., USIPHIL, Inc., FCrrochrortle Phils., Inc.., Sumfna, . , V IKumagai, Inc., Cellulose Processing CMpration: and HMC ^Marketing Corp., among others. x x x (emp,ll|siisu^ i .

As a corporate officer of Herdi^::fVli(|^#nignt'^Corporation (formerly Herdis Group, fe cleadY;:employ of Herminio Disini or any comp^riy|il»hiehS^^^any interest. The Information also alleg^aithlf^Disihiiand tfiiJi^^JIg^accused were officers of the same corporatfdriid^d ::l^Disini.

However, it cannot be gainsaid that the disrnissal of the ̂ se^^^only against Disini, considering that the pteSeht case fallsterms of the Immunity Agreement of which'oh'y h^ '®the charae. Thus, Disini cannot seek th^idlsmissal of the(Whotev-r;.TL^^^the charge. Thus, Disini cannot seek-the^i dismissal or ine-wnoie', t-il^criminal case to favor even the other accU;Sd!d. JurisprudenCdp^h&-^that criminal immunity cannot be granted tOia-persOfi whofnnever intended to exempt frorn prosecution,-'of vvhd. perfprmedrho ^to the benefit of the State that may havd served as basis fdrjia^ K;-g^||possible grant of exemption.^ : : ̂ ̂

T,

3*3^3iVuds^i:.

-1 - t y-- - » -r W-iiJ-t-Jlfr'

#* \. .ri... .1. r . |»T».H

® "A court will take judicial notice of its own acts and .rdCQrcis in the .sarne.\ca§0^^established in prior proceedings in the same; case,'of the authenticity ofanother case between the same parties, of the files Qf.-:rela^public records on file in the same court. In. addition judiplatfiibtlpe:willpleadings or judgment of a case in another court between; the same parties^fi^^one of the same parties, as well as of the record of another.case between differenVpartie^^^same court." (Degayo v. Magbanua'Dinglasan, 755 SCRA1,19 [?0151, citing Republic v. CA, 277 ;•SCRA633 [1997]. Emphasis supplied.) - . ■ /; . .^ Supra, note 4, at 235. ,

■■■' • - • ■ • :V.'1

sasi' .tXdiUN

RESOLUTIONPP vs. Disini, et al.Case No. SB-13-CRM-0597

Page 5 of 5

X- — X

' . . ■■■' : i • ■•■ ■ V-. . . . X - .-t H-iX} .

WHEREFOREGRANTS accused

premises con^ideii^|j-;|h§._ - Jesus R : DisiriP&'J|!^ii„„_DISMISSES the present case only as agsi^ill^SiAial^^Court LIFTS and SETS ASIDE the Wdrfa|i^pirT#;J^|^^Departure Order insofar as Jesus R Disinj^|S?;C3dhfeef'ried^^j^^orders the RELEASE of his bail bond, subjei^ito the Hsual aceowh|lh^^^^^and auditing rules and procedures: r

SO ORDERED.

APPROVED;

QUIROZ, J., Chairperson

CRUZ, J.

JACINTO, J.

':v v.I:;"'?;.

■:• -V' in^.i:xv5

J: X' -. i: ■- V.-. 1 ■ i.-}; Vv".?

-r-.:. i ~ -tRfGi

^ 7.

■V ' ^7;

V;