Javier vs. Sandiganbayan

A private sector representative appointed to the governing board of a government agency is deemed a public officer if invested with sovereign functions by law, and falls under the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction if the position is classified as Salary Grade 27 or higher. Furthermore, the filing of two separate informations for violations of different statutes (R.A. No. 3019 and the Revised Penal Code) based on the same act does not constitute double jeopardy where the accused has not been arraigned in one case and neither case has been dismissed or terminated without her express consent.

Republic Act No. 8047 created the National Book Development Board (NBDB), a government agency mandated to develop the book publishing industry, composed of both government and private sector representatives. Carolina R. Javier, then President of the Book Suppliers Association of the Philippines, was appointed by the President to the NBDB Governing Board as a private sector representative. She received a cash advance of ₱139,199.00 for an official trip to a Madrid book fair, which was subsequently canceled. Despite demands from the Resident Auditor and the Executive Director, the cash advance was neither liquidated nor returned.

• Appointment and Functions: Petitioner was appointed to the NBDB Governing Board as a private sector representative for one-year terms in 1996 and 1998. Her functions included attending book fairs to establish international linkages and participating in the drafting and promulgation of rules implementing R.A. No. 8047.
• The Cash Advance: On September 29, 1997, petitioner was issued a travel authority for the Madrid International Book Fair. She received ₱139,199.00 as traveling expenses. The trip did not materialize.
• Failure to Liquidate: On February 16, 1998, the Resident Auditor advised petitioner to refund the cash advance. On July 6, 1998, a Summary of Disallowances was issued, with a balance for settlement of ₱220,349.00. Petitioner failed to comply.
• Criminal Charges: The NBDB Executive Director filed a complaint with the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman indicted petitioner for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Amended Information: In Criminal Case No. 25898, the Information was amended to allege that petitioner's position was "equated to Board Member II with a salary grade 28."

• Status as a Private Individual: Petitioner maintained that she is not a public officer but a private sector representative, arguing she does not perform public functions and lacks administrative or political power.
• Lack of Jurisdiction: Petitioner argued that the Sandiganbayan lacks jurisdiction because the original information in Criminal Case No. 25867 did not allege she holds a position classified as Grade "27" or higher, and she is not a public official covered by the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction.
• Double Jeopardy: Petitioner contended that being charged under two informations for the same act violates her right against double jeopardy.

• Public Officer Status: Respondent countered that even as a private sector representative, petitioner performs public functions when acting as a board member or receiving government funds for official travel, making her a public official under the Anti-Graft Law and Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Jurisdiction: Respondent argued that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction under Section 4(g) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, which covers presidents, directors, or trustees of government-owned or controlled corporations, and the offense is office-related.
• No Double Jeopardy: Respondent asserted that the two informations charge offenses under different statutes (R.A. No. 3019 and the RPC), neither of which precludes prosecution under the other.

• Public Officer Status: Whether a private sector representative appointed to the governing board of a government agency is considered a public officer.
• Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction: Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a private sector representative whose position is equated to Salary Grade 28.
• Double Jeopardy: Whether the filing of two separate informations for violation of R.A. No. 3019 and Malversation under the RPC constitutes double jeopardy.

• Public Officer Status: Petitioner is deemed a public officer. A public office is the right, authority, and duty created by law, investing an individual with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government for the benefit of the public. Notwithstanding her private sector origin, the law invested her with sovereign functions to achieve government objectives. Under both the Anti-Graft Law and Article 203 of the Revised Penal Code, one appointed to a public office by competent authority is a public officer, regardless of the nature of the appointment or the receipt of nominal or no salary.
• Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction was properly vested in the Sandiganbayan. Under Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over officials classified as Grade "27" and higher. The Department of Budget and Management equated the position of NBDB Governing Board member to Board Member II, SG-28, bringing it within the Sandiganbayan's jurisdictional threshold.
• Double Jeopardy: Double jeopardy does not attach. The two informations charge offenses penalized by different statutes. Moreover, the third and fourth requisites of double jeopardy are absent: petitioner pleaded not guilty to only one charge, had not been arraigned in the other, and neither case was dismissed or terminated without her express consent.

• Definition of Public Office — The right, authority, and duty, created and conferred by law, by which an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised for the benefit of the public. Applied to hold that a private sector representative appointed to a government board exercises sovereign functions and is thus a public officer.
• Requisites of Double Jeopardy — (1) A complaint or information sufficient in form and substance; (2) filed before a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) a valid arraignment or plea to the charges; and (4) the accused is convicted, acquitted, or the case is dismissed or terminated without express consent. Applied to rule that double jeopardy did not attach because the accused had only pleaded to one information and neither case had been terminated.
• Remedy Upon Denial of Motion to Quash — The general rule is to go to trial and reiterate the special defenses, avoiding multiplicity of appeals. Certiorari lies only when the court acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, as requiring trial would be unfair if the court lacks jurisdiction.

• "A public office is the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public." — Defines the nature of a public office and the basis for classifying private sector nominees to government boards as public officers.
• "Notwithstanding that petitioner came from the private sector to sit as a member of the NBDB, the law invested her with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, so that the purpose of the government is achieved." — Clarifies that the source of appointment does not negate public officer status if sovereign functions are exercised.

• Ariel Los Baños, et al. v. Joel Pedro, G.R. No. 173588, April 22, 2009 — Cited for the definition and purpose of a motion to quash an information.
• Serana v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162059, January 22, 2008 — Followed for the rule that the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order not subject to certiorari, to avoid multiplicity of appeals.
• Newsweek, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, No. L-63559, May 30, 1986 — Followed for the exception allowing certiorari when a motion to quash is denied with grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction.
• Cabo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169509, June 16, 2006 — Followed for the elements required for double jeopardy to attach.

• Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — The offense charged in Criminal Case No. 25867, penalizing public officers causing undue injury to any party through evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
• Section 2(b), Republic Act No. 3019 — Defines a public officer to include elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether receiving compensation or nominal amounts. Applied to classify petitioner as a public officer despite her private sector origin.
• Article 203, Revised Penal Code — Defines a public officer as any person who, by direct provision of law, popular election, or appointment by competent authority, takes part in the performance of public functions. Applied to affirm petitioner's status as a public officer.
• Article 217, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the crime of Malversation of Public Funds, the offense charged in Criminal Case No. 25898.
• Article 222, Revised Penal Code — Extends the application of malversation provisions to private individuals who have charge of any public funds or property. Cited by the Sandiganbayan to assert jurisdiction over petitioner even if considered a private individual handling public funds.
• Section 4, P.D. No. 1606, as amended — Defines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, specifically over officials classified as Grade "27" and higher. Applied to establish jurisdiction over petitioner, whose position was equated to SG-28.
• Section 8, Republic Act No. 8047 — Enumerates the powers and functions of the NBDB Governing Board. Analyzed to conclude that the board exercises sovereign functions, making its members public officers.

Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura.