People vs. Sandiganbayan

Consolidation of criminal cases is a matter of judicial discretion that will not be disturbed absent grave abuse, and filing a subsequent motion in a lower court seeking the same relief as a pending certiorari petition constitutes forum shopping warranting summary dismissal.

Three separate criminal cases were filed by the Office of the Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan against former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada and others: Criminal Case No. 26558 for plunder, Criminal Case No. 26565 for illegal use of alias, and Criminal Case No. 26566 for indirect bribery against Jose Jaime Policarpio Jr. The cases were raffled to the Third, Fifth, and First Divisions, respectively. The prosecution sought to consolidate the alias and bribery cases with the plunder case, which bore the lowest docket number.

• Filing of Cases: On April 4, 2001, the Office of the Ombudsman filed three separate criminal informations before the Sandiganbayan. Criminal Case No. 26558 charged plunder against former President Estrada and others; Criminal Case No. 26565 charged illegal use of alias against Estrada; and Criminal Case No. 26566 charged indirect bribery against private respondent Jose Jaime Policarpio Jr. The cases were raffled to the Third, Fifth, and First Divisions, respectively.
• Motions to Consolidate: The prosecution filed motions to consolidate Criminal Case Nos. 26565 and 26566 with the plunder case (Crim. Case No. 26558).
• Divergent Rulings: The Fifth Division granted the consolidation of the illegal use of alias case with the plunder case on May 25, 2001. However, the First Division denied the consolidation of the indirect bribery case with the plunder case on June 28, 2001.
• Supervening Events: While the petition was pending before the Supreme Court, several events transpired. The parties filed a Joint Motion for Provisional Dismissal of the indirect bribery case, which the First Division denied. The prosecution filed another Urgent Motion for Consolidation on July 10, 2002, before the Sandiganbayan Special Division to allow the testimony of a witness in the plunder case to be used in the bribery case. The Special Division had already heard the testimonies of the witnesses the prosecution intended to present for the indirect bribery case.

• Judicial Discretion and Public Interest: Petitioner argued that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying the consolidation, claiming that a joint trial would promote the public interests of economical and speedy trial.
• Conflicting Factual Findings: Petitioner maintained that consolidation was necessary to preclude conflicting factual findings on identical issues between the First and Third Divisions of the Sandiganbayan.

• Absence of Grave Abuse: Respondent countered that the Sandiganbayan committed no grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to consolidate.
• Forum Shopping: Respondent argued that the petition should be dismissed because the prosecution engaged in forum shopping by filing a subsequent motion for consolidation in the Sandiganbayan while the certiorari petition was pending.

• Consolidation: Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion to consolidate the indirect bribery case with the plunder case.
• Forum Shopping: Whether the petitioner is guilty of forum shopping for filing a subsequent motion for consolidation in the Sandiganbayan while the certiorari petition was pending.

• Consolidation: No grave abuse of discretion was committed. Consolidation of criminal cases is a matter of judicial discretion under Section 22, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court. Joint trial was properly denied because it would unduly expose the accused in the bribery case to unrelated testimonies, delay the resolution of the case, muddle the issues, and subject him to the burdens of a lengthy plunder trial. Furthermore, supervening events—specifically, the witnesses having already testified in the plunder case—rendered consolidation inadvisable.
• Forum Shopping: The petitioner is guilty of forum shopping. Despite executing a certification against forum shopping, the prosecution filed an Urgent Motion for Consolidation before the Sandiganbayan while the certiorari petition involving the same issues and seeking the same relief was pending before the Supreme Court. Such repetitive availing of judicial remedies based on substantially the same facts and issues warrants summary dismissal.

• Consolidation of Criminal Cases — Consolidation is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. It is proper when the offenses are founded on the same facts or form part of a series of similar character, involve the same issues, and depend on substantially the same evidence, provided the court has jurisdiction and a joint trial will not prejudice the substantial rights of the accused. Conversely, consolidation is improper if it would delay resolution, expose the accused to unrelated testimonies, muddle the issues, or prejudice the right to a speedy trial.
• Forum Shopping — Forum shopping exists when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different venues, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and essential facts, raising substantially the same issues, and involving exactly the same parties. Violation of the prohibition against forum shopping constitutes a ground for summary dismissal.

• "The consolidation of cases is addressed to the sound discretion of judges. Unless the exercise of such discretion has been gravely abused, an appellate court will not disturb their findings and conclusions thereon."
• "[J]oint trial is permissible x x x where the [actions] arise from the same act, event or transaction, involve the same or like issues, and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence, provided that the court has jurisdiction over the cases to be consolidated and that a joint trial will not give one party an undue advantage or prejudice the substantial rights of any of the parties."
• "Forum-shopping exists when a party repetitively avails himself of several judicial remedies in different venues, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions, essential facts and circumstances, all raising substantially the same issues and involving exactly the same parties."

• Caños v. Peralta, 201 Phil. 422 (1982) — Followed. Laid down the requisites for consolidation: actions must arise from the same act or transaction, involve the same issues, depend on the same evidence, and joint trial must not prejudice a party's rights.
• Querubin v. Palanca, 141 Phil. 432 (1969) — Followed. Enumerated the instances when consolidation is proper, such as when offenses are of the same pattern or involve a common element of substantial importance.
• Republic v. Mangrobang, 370 SCRA 592 (2001) — Distinguished. Consolidation was struck down there because it would delay the resolution of cases with dissimilar issues.
• Dacanay v. People, 310 Phil. 534 (1995) — Followed. Held that the inconvenience and expense to the government cannot override the right to a speedy trial.
• Candido v. Camacho, G.R. No. 136751 (2002) — Followed. Defined forum shopping as the repetitive availing of several judicial remedies in different venues founded on the same transactions and raising the same issues.

• Section 22, Rule 119, Rules of Court — Governs the consolidation of trials of related offenses, providing that charges founded on the same facts or forming part of a series of similar character may be tried jointly at the discretion of the court. Applied to affirm that consolidation is discretionary, not mandatory.
• Section 2, Rule XII, Sandiganbayan Revised Internal Rules — Provides for the consolidation of cases arising from the same incident or involving common questions of fact and law in the division with the lowest docket number. Applied as the internal procedural basis for the motion.
• Rule 65, Section 1, Rules of Court — Governs Petitions for Certiorari and requires a verification and certification against forum shopping. Applied to hold the petitioner to its undertaking that no other action involving the same issues was pending, the violation of which warranted dismissal.

Puno (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez