104. PEOPLE VS.
ROMUALDEZ sufficiency of the averments in the information, that is, whether the facts alleged, if
G.R. No. 166510. July 23, 2008.*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. BENJAMIN “KOKOY” T.
ROMUALDEZ and THE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), respondents.
Appeals; Certiorari; Petition for Review on Certiorari.—The purpose and
occasion for the use of Rules 45 and 65 as modes of review are clearly established
under the Rules of Court and related jurisprudence. Rule 45 provides for the broad
process of appeal to the Supreme Court on pure errors of law committed by the lower
court. Rule 65, on the other hand, provides a completely different basis for review
through the extraordinary writ of certiorari. The writ is extraordinary because it solely
addresses lower court actions rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. By express provision, Rule
65 is the proper remedy when there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Thus,
_______________
* EN BANC.
493
VOL. 559, JULY 23, 2008 493
People vs. Romualdez
the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative
or successive;  certiorari is not allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a
judgment or final order despite the availability of that remedy; a petition
for certiorari cannot likewise be a substitute for a lost appeal.
Procedural Rules and Technicalities; In the spirit embodied in the second
paragraph of Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution, and in the interest of
substantial justice, the Supreme Court will not hesitate to deviate from the strict
application of procedural rules when grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction is properly and substantially alleged in a petition filed after the
lapse of the period for appeal under Rule 45 but prior to the lapse of the period for
filing a Rule 65 petition.—In the spirit embodied in this constitutional provision and in
the interest of substantial justice, we will not hesitate to deviate from the strict
application of our procedural rules when grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction is properly and substantially alleged in a petition filed after
the lapse of the period for appeal under Rule 45 but prior to the lapse of the period for
filing a Rule 65 petition. Conceptually, no major deviation from the rules in fact
transpires in doing this. Under established jurisprudence, decisions and rulings
rendered without or with lack or excess of jurisdiction are null and void, subject only to
the procedural limits on the right to question them provided under Rule 65. It is for this
reason that a decision that lapses to finality fifteen (15) days after its receipt can still
be questioned, within sixty (60) days therefrom, on jurisdictional grounds, although
the decision has technically lapsed to finality. The only deviation in terms of strict
application of the Rules is from what we have discussed above regarding the basic
nature of a petition for certiorari as expressly laid down by Rule 65; it is available only
when there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, and thus is not allowed as a substitute when a party fails to
appeal a judgment or final order despite the availability of that remedy.
Criminal Procedure; Motions to Quash; The determinative test in appreciating a
motion to quash under Section 3 (a) of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court is the
hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the offense as de-
494
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Romualdez
fined by law without considering matters aliunde.—Romualdez’s motion to
quash that gave rise to the present case was anchored on Section 3 (a) of Rule 117
of the Revised Rules of Court which provides: Section 3. Grounds.—The accused
may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following grounds: (a)
That the facts charged do not constitute an offense; x x x x The determinative test in
appreciating a motion to quash under this rule is the sufficiency of the averments in
the information, that is, whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would
establish the essential elements of the offense as defined by law without considering
matters aliunde. As Section 6, Rule 117 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure requires,
the information only needs to state the ultimate facts; the evidentiary and other details
can be provided during the trial.
Grave Abuse of Discretion; Words and Phrases; The court acts correctly, or
commits errors of law depending on its conclusions if—based solely on the “four
corners” of the information as jurisprudence dictates, independently of any evidence
whether prima facie or conclusive, and hypothetically assuming the truth of all the
allegations in the Information—it rules on whether all the elements of the offenses as
defined by law are present; The court acts with grave abuse of discretion if its ruling
is a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or
if it rules in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility,
or if it acts in a manner so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive
duty, or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to action outside the
contemplation of law.—Whether the Sandiganbayan acted correctly, or committed
errors of law while in the exercise of its jurisdiction, or gravely abused its discretion in
quashing the information, are to be determined based on the application of the
standards in evaluating a motion to quash, in light of the elements and terms of the
offense with which the accused stands charged. The Sandiganbayan acts correctly
or commits errors of law depending on its conclusions if—based solely on the
“four corners” of the information as jurisprudence mandates, independently of any
evidence whether prima facie or conclusive, and hypothetically assuming the truth of
all the allegations in the Information—it rules on whether all the elements of the
offense as defined by law are present. On the other hand, it acts with grave abuse
of discretion if its ruling is a capricious or whimsical exercise of
495
VOL. 559, JULY 23, 2008 495
People vs. Romualdez
judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; or if it rules in an arbitrary or despotic
manner by reason of passion or personal hostility; or if it acts in a manner so patent
and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty, or to a virtual refusal to
perform the duty enjoined, or to action outside the contemplation of law.
Same; Same; A court grossly violates the defined standard when its
conclusions are based on considerations that either are not appropriate in evaluating
a motion to quash, or are evidentiary details not required to be stated in an
Information, or are matters of defense that have no place in an Information, or are
statements amounting to rulings on the merits that a court cannot issue before trial.—
Page 1 of 9
Based on these considerations, we hold that the Sandiganbayan’s actions grossly
violated the defined standards. Its conclusions are based on considerations that
either not appropriate in evaluating a motion to quash; are evidentiary details not
required to be stated in an Information; are matters of defense that have no place in
an Information; or are statements amounting to rulings on the merits that a court
cannot issue before trial.
Criminal Law; Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019); Violation of
Section 3(e); Correctly understood, it is not the holding of two concurrent positions or
the attendant efficiency in the handling of these two positions, but the causing of
undue injury to the government that is at the core of a Section 3(e) violation.—Worse
than the premature ruling it made in the above-quoted conclusion was the patent
speculation that the Sandiganbayan undertook in considering “inefficiency” and
arriving at its conclusion. Still much worse was its misreading of what a violation of
Section 3(e), R.A. 3019 involves. Correctly understood, it is not the holding of two
concurrent positions or the attendant efficiency in the handling of these positions, but
the causing of undue injury to the government that is at the core of a Section
3(e) violation. The same misreading was evident when the Sandiganbayan stated in
its second Resolution that “the accused cannot be held criminally liable, whether or
not he had himself appointed to the position of the ambassador, while concurrently
holding the position of provincial governor, because the act of appointment is
something that can only be imputed to the appointing authority.”
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.496
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Romualdez
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
    The Solicitor General for petitioner.
    Otilia Dimayuga-Molo for private respondent.
BRION, J.:
We resolve the Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of
Court by the People of the Philippines (People), assailing the Resolutions dated 22
June 20041 and 23 November 20042 of the Sandiganbayan in CRIMINAL CASE NO.
26916 entitled People of the Philippines versus Benjamin “Kokoy” Romualdez, on the
ground of grave abuse of discretion and/or lack or excess of jurisdiction. The first
assailed Resolution granted the motion to quash filed by private respondent Benjamin
“Kokoy” Romualdez (Romualdez); the second assailed Resolution, on the other hand,
denied the People’s motion for reconsideration of the first assailed Resolution.
ANTECEDENTS
The Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) charged Romualdez before the
Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019), as
amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The
Information3 reads:
“That on or about and during the period from 1976 to February 1986 or sometime
prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Manila,
_______________
1 Penned by then Sandiganbayan Associate Justice, now Sandiganbayan
Presiding Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, with Associate Justices Roland B. Jurado and
Efren N. dela Cruz, concurring; Rollo, pp. 45-53.
2 Penned by Justice Peralta, with then Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Teresita
Leonardo-de Castro (now a member of this Court) and Justice dela Cruz,
concurring; id., pp. 54-60.
3 Id., pp. 86-88.
497
VOL. 559, JULY 23, 2008 497
People vs. Romualdez
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Benjamin
“Kokoy” Romualdez, a public officer being then the Provincial Governor of the
Province of Leyte, while in the performance of his official function, committing the
offense in relation to his Office, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally
with evident bad faith, cause undue injury to the Government in the following manner:
accused public officer being then the elected Provincial Governor of Leyte and
without abandoning said position, and using his influence with his brother-in-law, then
President Ferdinand E. Marcos, had himself appointed and/or assigned as
Ambassador to foreign countries, particularly the People’s Republic of China
(Peking), Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Jeddah), and United States of America
(Washington D.C.), knowing fully well that such appointment and/or assignment is in
violation of the existing laws as the Office of the Ambassador or Chief of Mission is
incompatible with his position as Governor of the Province of Leyte, thereby enabling
himself to collect dual compensation from both the Department of Foreign Affairs and
the Provincial Government of Leyte in the amount of Two Hundred Seventy-six
Thousand Nine Hundred Eleven Dollars and 56/100 (US $276,911.56), US Currency
or its equivalent amount of Five Million Eight Hundred Six Thousand Seven Hundred
Nine Pesos and 50/100 (P5,806,709.50) and Two Hundred Ninety-three Thousand
Three Hundred Forty-eight Pesos and 86/100 (P293,348.86) both Philippine
Currencies, respectively, to the damage and prejudice of the Government in the
aforementioned amount of P5,806,709.50.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Romualdez moved to quash the information4 on two grounds, namely: (1) that the
facts alleged in the information do not constitute the offense with which the accused
was charged; and (2) that the criminal action or liability has been extinguished by
prescription. He argued that the acts imputed against him do not constitute an offense
because: (a) the cited provision of the law applies only to public officers charged with
the grant of licenses, permits, or other concessions, and the act charged—receiving
dual compensation—is absolutely
_______________
4 Id., pp. 89-109.
498
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Romualdez
irrelevant and unrelated to the act of granting licenses, permits, or other concessions;
and (b) there can be no damage and prejudice to the Government considering that
he actually rendered services for the dual positions of Provincial Governor of Leyte
and Ambassador to foreign countries.
To support his prescription argument, Romualdez posited that the 15-year
prescription under Section 11 of RA 3019 had lapsed since the preliminary
investigation of the case for an offense committed on or about and during the period
from 1976 to February 1986 commenced only in May 2001 after a Division of the
Page 2 of 9
Sandiganbayan referred the matter to the Office of the Ombudsman. He argued that
there was no interruption of the prescriptive period for the offense because the
proceedings undertaken under the 1987 complaint filed with the Presidential
Commission on Good Government (PCGG) were null and void pursuant to the
Supreme Court’s ruling in Cojuangco Jr. v. PCGG5 and Cruz Jr [sic].6 He likewise
argued that the Revised Penal Code provision7 that prescription does not run when
the offender is absent from the Philippines should not apply to his case, as he was
charged with an offense not covered by the Revised Penal Code; the law on the
prescription of offenses punished under special laws (Republic Act No. 3326) does
not contain any rule similar to that found in the Revised Penal Code.
The People opposed the motion to quash on the argument that Romualdez is
misleading the court in asserting that Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 does not apply to him
when Section 2 (b) of the law states that corrupt practices may be committed by
public officers who  include  “elective and appointive officials and employees,
permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or  unclassified or exempt service
receiving compensation,
_______________
5 G.R. No. 92319, October 2, 1990, 190 SCRA 226, 257.
6 Referring apparently to Cruz, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 94595, February
26, 1991, 194 SCRA 474.
7 Article 91.
499
VOL. 559, JULY 23, 2008 499
People vs. Romualdez
even nominal, from the government.”8 On the issue of prescription, the People argued
that Section 15, Article XI of the Constitution provides that the right of the State to
recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees, from them or
from their nominees or transferees, shall not be barred by prescription, laches or
estoppel, and that prescription is a matter of technicality to which no one has a vested
right. Romualdez filed a Reply to this Opposition.9
The Sandiganbayan granted Romualdez’s motion to quash in the first Resolution
assailed in this petition. The Sandiganbayan stated:
“We find that the allegation of damage and prejudice to the Government in the
amount of P5,806,709.50 representing the accused’s compensation is without basis,
absent a showing that the accused did not actually render services for his two
concurrent positions as Provincial Governor of the Province of Leyte and as
Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and United
States of America. The accused alleges in the subject Motion that he actually
rendered services to the government. To receive compensation for actual services
rendered would not come within the ambit of improper or illegal use of funds or
properties of the government; nor would it constitute unjust enrichment tantamount to
the damage and prejudice of the government.
Jurisprudence has established what “evident bad faith” and “gross negligence”
entail, thus:
In order to be held guilty of violating Section 3 (e), R. A. No. 3019, the act
of the accused that caused undue injury must have been done with evident
bad faith or with gross inexcusable negligence. But bad faith per se is not
enough for one to be held liable under the law, the “bad faith” must be
“evident.”
x x x   x x x   x x x
x x x. “Gross negligence” is characterized by the want of even slight
care, acting or omitting to act in a
_______________
8 Rollo, pp. 110-113.
9 Id., pp. 114-119.
500
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Romualdez
willful or omitting to act in a willful or intentional manner displaying a
conscious indifference to consequences as far as other persons may be
affected. (Emphasis supplied)
The accused may have been inefficient as a public officer by virtue of his holding
of two concurrent positions, but such inefficiency is not enough to hold him criminally
liable under the Information charged against him, given the elements of the crime and
the standards set by the Supreme Court quoted above. At most, any liability arising
from the holding of both positions by the accused may be administrative in nature.
xxx
However, as discussed above, the Information does not sufficiently aver how the
act of receiving dual compensation resulted to undue injury to the government so as
to make the accused liable for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019.”10
The Sandiganbayan found no merit in Romualdez’s prescription argument.
The People moved to reconsider this Resolution, citing “reversible errors” that the
Sandiganbayan committed in its ruling.11 Romualdez opposed the People’s motion,
but also moved for a partial reconsideration of the Resolution’s ruling on
prescription.12 The People opposed Romualdez’s motion for partial reconsideration.13
Thereafter, the Sandiganbayan denied via the second assailed Resolution14 the
People’s motion for reconsideration under the following terms—
“The Court held in its Resolution of June 22, 2004, and so maintains and
sustains, that assuming the averments of the foregoing information are hypothetically
admitted by the accused, it would
_______________
10 Supra note 1.
11  Rollo, pp. 61-85.
12 Id., pp. 120-128.
13 Id., pp. 129-145.
14 Supra note 2.
501
VOL. 559, JULY 23, 2008 501
People vs. Romualdez
not constitute the offense of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 as the elements of
(a) causing undue injury to any party, including the government, by giving
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such parties, and (b) that the public
officer acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence, are wanting.
As it is, a perusal of the information shows that pertinently, accused is being
charged for: (a) having himself appointed as ambassador to various posts while
serving as governor of the Province of Leyte and (b) for collecting dual compensation
for said positions. As to the first, the Court finds that accused cannot be held
Page 3 of 9
criminally liable, whether or not he had himself appointed to the position of the
ambassador while concurrently holding the position of provincial governor, because
the act of appointment is something that can only be imputed to the appointing
authority.
Even assuming that the appointee influenced the appointing authority, the
appointee only makes a passive participation by entering into the appointment, unless
it is alleged that he acted in conspiracy with his appointing authority, which, however,
is not so claimed by the prosecution in the instant case. Thus, even if the accused’s
appointment was contrary to law or the constitution, it is the appointing authority that
should be responsible therefor because it is the latter who is the doer of the alleged
wrongful act. In fact, under the rules on payment of compensation, the appointing
authority responsible for such unlawful employment shall be personally liable for the
pay that would have accrued had the appointment been lawful. As it is, the appointing
authority herein, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos has been laid to rest, so it
would be incongruous and illogical to hold his appointee, herein accused, liable for
the appointment.
Further, the allegation in the information that the accused collected compensation
in the amounts of Five Million Eight Hundred Six Thousand Seven Hundred Nine
Pesos and 50/100 (P5,806,709.50) and Two Hundred Ninety-three Thousand Three
Hundred Forty Eight Pesos and 86/100 (P293,348.86) cannot sustain the theory of
the prosecution that the accused caused damage and prejudice to the government, in
the absence of any contention that receipt of such was tantamount to giving
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to any party and to acting with
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. Besides  Romualdez countered in his Rejoinder18 that the assailed Resolutions, being final,
502
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Romualdez
receiving compensation is an incident of actual services rendered, hence it cannot be
construed as injury or damage to the government.”
It likewise found no merit in Romualdez’s motion for partial reconsideration.
THE PETITION AND THE PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS
The People filed the present petition on the argument that the Sandiganbayan
committed grave abuse of discretion in quashing the Information based on the
reasons it stated in the assailed Resolutions, considering that:
a. Romualdez cannot be legally appointed as an ambassador of the Republic of
the Philippines during his incumbency as Governor of the Province of Leyte; thus, to
draw salaries for the two positions is to cause undue injury to the government under
Section 3 (e) of RA 3019;
b. Romualdez cannot receive compensation for his illegal appointment as
Ambassador of the Republic of the Philippines and for his services in this capacity;
thus, to so pay him is to make illegal payment of public funds and cause undue injury
to the government under Section 3 (e) of RA 3019; and
c. The Sandiganbayan went beyond the ultimate facts required in charging a
violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 and delved into matters yet to be proven during
trial.
Required to comment on the petition, Romualdez filed a Motion to Dismiss with
Comment Ad Cautelam.15 He argued that the filing of the present Rule 65 petition is
improper, as a petition filed under Rule 45, instead of Rule 65, of the Revised Rules
of Court is the proper remedy, considering that the assailed Resolutions are
appealable. He cited in support of this contention the ruling that an order granting a
motion to quash, unlike one of denial, is a final order; it is not merely
_______________
15 Rollo, pp. 174-223.
503
VOL. 559, JULY 23, 2008 503
People vs. Romualdez
interlocutory and is therefore immediately appealable.16 He further argued that the
present petition was belatedly filed, as the People filed it beyond the 15-day
reglementary filing period for a Rule 45 petition. On the substantive issues raised in
the petition, he argued that the factual averments in the Information do not constitute
the offense charged and that the criminal action or liability has been extinguished by
prescription.
The People, on the other hand, asserted in reply 17 that while a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 may be availed of only when there is no appeal or any
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, or that certiorari is
not a substitute for the lost remedy of an appeal, the rule may be relaxed when the
issue raised is purely legal, when public interest is involved, and in case of urgency. It
also argued that certiorari may also be availed of where an appeal would be slow,
inadequate, and insufficient; and that it is within this Court’s power to suspend or
exempt a particular case from the operation of the rules when its strict application will
frustrate rather than promote justice. Thus, the People asked for a review of the case
based on substantial justice and the claimed merits of the instant petition.
can no longer be questioned, re-opened, or reviewed; that public policy and sound
practice demand that at the risk of occasional errors, judgments of courts become
final and irrevocable at some definite date fixed by law. Citing the express provision of
Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act No. 8249 (which
provides that decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be appealable to
the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law in
_______________
16 The respondent cited Milo v. Salonga, L-37007, July 20, 1987, 152 SCRA 113,
as authority.
17 Rollo, pp. 232-253.
18 Id., pp. 254-261.
504
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Romualdez
accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court), he argued that certiorari cannot be
availed of because of the availability of appeal.
These submissions bring to the fore the threshold issue of whether the present
petition may be given due course given the Rule 65 mode of review that the People
used. As will be seen below, our examination of this threshold issue leads to the
consideration of the grave abuse of discretion issue.
OUR RULING
The Threshold Issue
The Sandiganbayan ruling granting Romualdez’s motion to quash the Information
shall, upon finality, close and terminate the proceedings against Romualdez; hence, it
is a final ruling that disposes of the case and is properly reviewable by appeal. 19 The
Page 4 of 9
appeal, as Romualdez correctly maintains, is through Section 7 of Presidential
Decree No. 1606 (as amended by Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8249), which
provides that decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan are appealable to the
Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law in
accordance with Rule 45.
Significantly, the People does not deny at all that the mode of review to question
a Sandiganbayan final ruling is by way of Rule 45, as the above cited provision
requires. It only posits that this requirement does not foreclose the use of a Rule 65
petition for certiorari premised on grave abuse of discretion when the issue is purely
legal, when public interest is involved, or in case of urgency. In short, the People asks
us to relax the application of the rules on the modes of review.
_______________
19 People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 156394, January 21, 2005, 449 SCRA
205, 216, citing People v. Sandiganbayan, 408 SCRA 672, 674 (2003) and Africa v.
Sandiganbayan, 287 SCRA 408, 417 (1998).
505
VOL. 559, JULY 23, 2008 505
People vs. Romualdez
The purpose and occasion for the use of Rules 45 and 65 as modes of review are
clearly established under the Rules of Court20 and related jurisprudence.21 Rule 45
provides for the broad process of appeal to the Supreme Court on pure errors of law
committed by the lower court. Rule 65, on the other hand, provides a completely
different basis for review through the extraordinary writ of certiorari. The writ is
extraordinary because it solely addresses lower court actions rendered without or in
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction. By express provision, Rule 65 is the proper remedy when there is no
appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law. Thus, the remedies of appeal and certiorari  are mutually exclusive and not
alternative or successive; certiorari is not allowed when a party to a case fails to
appeal a judgment or final order despite the availability of that remedy; a petition
for certiorari cannot likewise be a substitute for a lost appeal.22
Cases on the choice between the Rule 45 and Rule 65 modes of review are not
novel. Because of the spirit of liberality that pervades the Rules of Court 23 and the
interest of substantial justice that we have always believed should be upheld,24 we
have had occasions to relax the strict rules regulating these modes of review.
However, these occasions are few and far between and have always been attended
by exceptional circumstances; otherwise, the exceptions would dis-
_______________
20 See the provisions of the Revised Rules of Court on the mechanics of filing
these petitions; for Appeals by Certiorari, Rule 45 and for Petition for Certiorari, Rule
65.
21 See People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 168188-89, June 16, 2006, 491
SCRA 185.
22 Supra note 19.
23 Revised Rules of Court, Rule 1, Section 6.
24 See the Solicitor General v. Metropolitan Manila Authority, G.R. No. 102782,
December 11, 1991, 204 SCRA 837, citing Araneta v. Dinglasan, 84 Phil 368 (1949).
506
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Romualdez
place the general rule, rendering useless the distinctions painstakingly established
through the years to foster procedural orderliness.
In Filoteo v. Sandiganbayan25 we allowed a Rule 65 petition, notwithstanding that
the proper remedy is a Rule 45 appeal, to review a Sandiganbayan Decision  in view
of the importance of the issues raised  in the case. We similarly allowed a review
under Rule 65 in Republic v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)26 and Republic v.
Sandiganbayan (Special First Division)27—cases on ill-gotten wealth—on the
reasoning that the nature of the cases was endowed with public interest and involved
public policy concerns. In the latter Republic v. Sandiganbayan  case, we added that
substantial justice to the Filipino people and to all parties concerned, not mere
legalisms or perfection of form, should be relentlessly and firmly pursued. In the past,
we have likewise allowed a similar treatment on the showing that an appeal was an
inadequate remedy.28 That we can single out for special treatment cases involving
grave abuse of discretion is supported by no less than the second paragraph of
Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution which provides:
“Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversy involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and
to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government.”
Under this provision, action on grave abuse of discretion is not only a power we can
exercise; more than this,  it is a duty we must discharge.
_______________
25 G.R. No. 79543, October 16, 1996, 263 SCRA 222.
26 G.R. No. 113420, March 7, 1997, 269 SCRA 316.
27 G.R. No. 152154, July 15, 2003, 407 SCRA 10.
28  Supra note 19; See also Presidential Commission on Good Government v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 100733, June 18, 1992, 210 SCRA 136, 148-149.
507
VOL. 559, JULY 23, 2008 507
People vs. Romualdez
In the spirit embodied in this constitutional provision and in the interest of
substantial justice, we will not hesitate to deviate from the strict application of our
procedural rules when grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction is properly and substantially alleged in a petition filed after the lapse of the
period for appeal under Rule 45 but prior to the lapse of the period for filing a Rule 65
petition. Conceptually, no major deviation from the rules in fact transpires in doing
this. Under established jurisprudence, decisions and rulings rendered without or with
lack or excess of jurisdiction are null and void,29 subject only to the procedural limits
on the right to question them provided under Rule 65. 30 It is for this reason that a
decision that lapses to finality fifteen (15) days after its receipt can still be questioned,
within sixty (60) days therefrom, on jurisdictional grounds, although the decision has
technically lapsed to finality. The only deviation in terms of strict application of the
Rules is from what we have discussed above regarding the basic nature of a petition
for certiorari as expressly laid down by Rule 65; it is available only when there is no
appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law, and thus is not allowed as a substitute when a party fails to appeal a judgment or
final order despite the availability of that remedy.31
Page 5 of 9
 Under these terms, if the Sandiganbayan merely legally erred while acting within
the confines of its jurisdiction, then its ruling, even if erroneous, is properly the subject
of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, and any Rule 65 petition
subsequently filed will be for naught. The Rule 65 petition brought under these
circumstances is then being used
_______________
29 Albay I Cooperative, Inc. v. Martinez, G.R. No. 95559, November 9, 1993, 227
SCRA 606.
30 Longino v. General, G.R. No. 147956, February 16, 2005, 451 SCRA 423; see
also Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108947, September 29, 1997, 279 SCRA
647.
31 Supra note 19.
508
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Romualdez
as a substitute for a lost appeal. If, on the other hand, the Sandiganbayan ruling
is attended by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
then this ruling is fatally defective on jurisdictional ground and we should allow it to be
questioned within the period for filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65,
notwithstanding the lapse of the period of appeal under Rule 45. To reiterate, the
ruling’s jurisdictional defect and the demands of substantial justice that we believe
should receive primacy over the strict application of rules of procedure, require that
we so act.
The Grave Abuse of Discretion Issue
Romualdez’s motion to quash that gave rise to the present case was anchored on
Section 3 (a) of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides:
“Section 3. Grounds.—The accused may move to quash the complaint or
information on any of the following grounds:
(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
xxxx
The determinative test in appreciating a motion to quash under this rule is the
sufficiency of the averments in the information, that is, whether the facts alleged, if
hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the offense as
defined by law without considering matters aliunde.32 As Section 6, Rule 117 of the
Rules of Criminal Procedure requires, the information only needs to state the ultimate
facts;33 the evidentiary and other details can be provided dur-
_______________
32 Poblete v. Sandoval, G.R. No. 150610, March 25, 2004, 426 SCRA 346, 351.
33 Rule 117, Section 6 provides:
SEC. 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information.—A complaint or
information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of
the offense given by the statute;
509
VOL. 559, JULY 23, 2008 509
People vs. Romualdez
ing the trial.34
The legal provision under which Romualdez stands charged—Section 3 (e) of RA
3019—on the other hand provides:
“Sec. 3. Corrupt practices by public officers.—In addition to acts or omissions of
public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt
practice of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxxx
(e) causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or
giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in
the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This
provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices of government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other
concessions.
Reduced to its elements, a violation under this provision requires that:35
1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative,
judicial or official functions;
2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
inexcusable negligence in the discharge of his functions; and
_______________
the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of
the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense;
and the place where the offense was committed.
When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall
be included in the complaint.
34 See Domingo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 109376, January 20, 2000, 322
SCRA 655.
35 See Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 162314-17, October 25, 2004, 441
SCRA 377, 386.
510
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Romualdez
3. His action caused undue injury to any party, including the government,
or gave a private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference.
Whether the Sandiganbayan acted correctly, or committed errors of law while in
the exercise of its jurisdiction, or gravely abused its discretion in quashing the
information, are to be determined based on the application of the standards in
evaluating a motion to quash, in light of the elements and terms of the offense with
which the accused stands charged. The Sandiganbayan acts correctly or commits
errors of law depending on its conclusions if—based solely on the “four corners” of
the information as jurisprudence mandates,36 independently of any evidence
whether prima facie or conclusive, and hypothetically assuming the truth of all the
allegations in the Information—it rules on whether all the elements of the offense as
defined by law are present. On the other hand, it acts with grave abuse of discretion if
its ruling is a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction; or if it rules in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or
personal hostility; or if it acts in a manner so patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of positive duty, or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to
action outside the contemplation of law.37
Our reading of the Information, based on the elements of the offense, shows us
that the first element of the offense is reflected in the allegation that the “accused
BENJAMIN ‘KOKOY’ ROMUALDEZ, a public officer being then the Provincial
Page 6 of 9
Governor of the Province of Leyte, while in the performance of his official function,
committing the offense in relation to his Office. . . .” In plain terms, the accused was
then a public officer discharging official functions.
_______________
36 Supra note 31.
37 See Lalican v. Vergara, G.R. No. 108619, July 31, 1997, 276 SCRA 518,
and Intestate Estate of Carmen de Luna v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No.
72424, February 13, 1989, 170 SCRA 246.
511
VOL. 559, JULY 23, 2008 511
People vs. Romualdez
The second element appears in the averment that the “accused . . . willfully,
unlawfully and criminally with evident bad faith . . .” and the more particular averment
that “accused public officer being then the elected Provincial Governor of Leyte and
without abandoning said position, and using his influence with his brother-in-law, then
President Ferdinand E. Marcos, had himself appointed and/or assigned as
Ambassador to foreign countries, particularly the People’s Republic of China
(Peking), Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Jeddah), and United States of America
(Washington D.C.), knowing fully well that such appointment and/or assignment is in
violation of the existing laws as the Office of the Ambassador or Chief of Mission is
incompatible with his position as Governor of the Province of Leyte.” In short, while
being the elected Governor and in “evident bad faith,” he had himself appointed to the
incompatible position of ambassador.
Finally, the last element corresponds to the allegation that the
“accused. . .  cause[d] undue injury to the Government,” supported further by the
particular allegation “thereby enabling himself to collect dual compensation from both
the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Provincial Government of Leyte in the
amount of Two Hundred Seventy-six thousand Nine Hundred Eleven Dollars and
56/100 (US $276,911.56), US Currency or its equivalent amount of Five Million Eight
Hundred Six Thousand Seven Hundred Nine Pesos and 50/100 (P5,806,709.50) and
Two Hundred Ninety-three Thousand Three Hundred Forty-eight Pesos and 86/100
(P293,348.86) both Philippine Currencies, respectively, to the damage and prejudice
of the Government in the aforementioned amount of P5,806,709.50.” Thus, attended
by and as a result of the second element, the accused caused undue injury to the
government by collecting dual compensation from the two incompatible positions he
occupied.
In its first Resolution, the Sandiganbayan concluded that (1) “the allegation of
damage and prejudice to the Government . . . is without basis, absent a showing that
the accused did not actually render services for his two concurrent positions. . .
512
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Romualdez
and that (2)  [T]he accused alleges in the subject Motion that he actually rendered
service to the government. To receive compensation for actual services rendered
would not come within the ambit of improper or illegal use of funds or
properties.”38 After citing jurisprudence defining evident bad faith and gross
negligence, it went on to state that (3) the accused may have been inefficient as a
public officer by virtue of his holding of two concurrent positions,  but such inefficiency
is not enough to hold him criminally liable under the Information charged against him,
given the elements of the crime and the standards set by the Supreme Court . . . .  At
most, any liability arising from the holding of both positions by the accused may be
administrative in nature.”39 [underscoring supplied]
In the second Resolution, on the other hand, the Sandiganbayan
concluded: (1) on the allegation that Romualdez had himself appointed as
Ambassador while concurrently serving as Provincial Governor, that it “finds
that  accused cannot be held criminally liable, whether or not he had himself
appointed to the position . . . because the act of appointment is something that can
only be imputed to the appointing authority . . . Even assuming that the appointee
influenced the appointing authority, the appointee only makes a passive participation
by entering into the appointment, unless it is alleged that he acted in conspiracy with
his appointing authority  . . .,”40 and (2) on the matter of dual compensation, that the
allegation . . . cannot sustain the theory of the prosecution that the accused caused
damage and prejudice to the government,  in the absence of any contention that
receipt of such was tantamount to giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference to any party and to acting with manifest partiality, evi-
_______________
38 See the first assailed Resolution, quoted at pp. 4-5 of this Decision.
39 Id.
40 See the Second assailed Resolution, quoted at pp. 4-5 of this Decision.
513
VOL. 559, JULY 23, 2008 513
People vs. Romualdez
dent bad faith or gross excusable negligence; besides,  receiving compensation is an
incident of actual services rendered, hence it cannot be construed as injury or
damage to the government.”41
To put our discussions in perspective, we are not here primarily engaged in
evaluating the motion to quash that Romualdez filed with the Sandiganbayan. Rather,
we are evaluating—on the basis of the standards we have defined above—the
propriety of the action of the Sandiganbayan in quashing the Information against
Romualdez.
Based on these considerations, we hold that the Sandiganbayan’s actions grossly
violated the defined standards. Its conclusions are based on considerations that
either not appropriate in evaluating a motion to quash; are evidentiary details not
required to be stated in an Information; are matters of defense that have no place in
an Information; or are statements amounting to rulings on the merits that a court
cannot issue before trial.
To illustrate, in the first Resolution, the Sandiganbayan saw no basis for the
allegation of damage and prejudice for the failure of the Information to state that
Romualdez did not render service in the two positions which he occupied. The
element of the offense material to the “damage and prejudice” that the
Sandiganbayan refers to is the “undue injury” caused to the government by
Romualdez’s receipt of compensation for the incompatible positions that he could not
simultaneously occupy. The allegation of “undue injury” in the Information,
consisting of the extent of the injury and how it was caused, is complete.
Beyond this allegation are matters that are already in excess of what a proper
Information requires. To restate the rule, an Information only needs to state the
ultimate facts constituting the offense, not the finer details of why and how the illegal
acts alleged amounted to undue injury or damage—matters that are ap-
Page 7 of 9
_______________
41 Id.
514
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Romualdez
propriate for the trial. Specifically, how the two positions of Romualdez were
incompatible with each other and whether or not he can legally receive compensation
for his two incompatible positions are matters of detail that the prosecution should
adduce at the trial to flesh out the ultimate facts alleged in the Information. Whether or
not compensation has been earned through proper and commensurate service is a
matter in excess of the ultimate facts the Information requires and is one that
Romualdez, not the Information, should invoke or introduce into the case as a
matter of defense.
From another perspective, the Sandiganbayan’s view that the Information should
have alleged that services were not rendered assumes that Romualdez can occupy
two government positions and can secure compensation from both positions if
services were rendered. At the very least, these are legally erroneous
assumptions that are contrary to what the then prevailing laws provided. Article XII
(B), Section 4 of the 1973 Constitution provides that:
“Unless otherwise provided by law, no elective official shall be eligible for
appointment to any office or position during his tenure except as Member of the
Cabinet.”
On the other hand, Presidential Decree No. 807 Providing for the Organization of
the Civil Service Commission states in its Section 44 that—
“Limitation on Appointment.—No elective official shall be eligible for appointment
to any office or position during his term of office.”
On the matter of double compensation, the 1973 Constitution likewise has a specific
provision—Article XV, Section 5—which states:
“SEC. 5. No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive
additional or double compensation unless specifically
515
VOL. 559, JULY 23, 2008 515
People vs. Romualdez
authorized by law, nor accept, without the consent of the Batasang Pambansa, any
present, emolument, office or title of any kind from any foreign state.”
Neither the Sandiganbayan nor Romuladez has pointed to any law, and we are
not aware of any such law, that would exempt Romualdez from the prohibition of the
above-cited provisions.
In the context of ruling on a motion to quash, the allegation that services were not
rendered that the Sandiganbayan wished to require,  not being a fact material to the
elements of the offense, is an extraneous matter that is inappropriate for the
Sandiganbayan to consider for inclusion in the Information. That the
Sandiganbayan has a fixation on this approach is patent from a reading of the second
assailed Resolution when the Sandiganbayan, following the same line of thought,
once more insisted that “receiving compensation is an incident of actual services
rendered, hence it cannot be construed as injury or damage to the government.” Thus
again, the Sandiganbayan grossly erred in the same manner it did in the first
Resolution.
For the Sandiganbayan to assume, too, and to conclude, that there was no
damage and prejudice since there was no illegality in being compensated for actual
services rendered, is to pass upon the merits of the case—a task premature for the
Sandiganbayan to undertake at the motion-to-quash stage of the case. In so doing,
the Sandiganbayan prematurely ruled on at least two matters. First, the
Sandiganbayan either assumed as correct, or admitted for purposes of the motion to
quash, the defense allegation that Romualdez rendered services, when this is a
disputed evidentiary matter that can only be established at the trial. Second, and as
already mentioned above, the legal status of the receipt of compensation for each of
two incompatible offices is, at best, legally debatable. The Sandiganbayan repeated
this premature ruling on the merits of the case in its subsequent statement in the first
Resolution that “the accused may have been ineffi-
516
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Romualdez
cient as a public officer by virtue of his holding of two concurrent positions, but such
inefficiency is not enough to hold him criminally liable under the Information charged
against him, given the elements of the crime and the standards set by the Supreme
Court . . . At most, any liability arising from the holding of both positions by the
accused may be administrative in nature.”42
Worse than the premature ruling it made in the above-quoted conclusion was
the patent speculation that the Sandiganbayan undertook in considering
“inefficiency” and arriving at its conclusion. Still much worse was
its misreading of what a violation of Section 3(e), R.A. 3019 involves. Correctly
understood, it is not the holding of two concurrent positions or the attendant efficiency
in the handling of these positions, but the causing of undue injury to the
government that is at the core of a Section 3(e) violation. The same misreading
was evident when the Sandiganbayan stated in its second Resolution that “the
accused cannot be held criminally liable, whether or not he had himself appointed to
the position of the ambassador, while concurrently holding the position of provincial
governor, because the act of appointment is something that can only be imputed to
the appointing authority.”
The Sandiganbayan fared no better and similarly gravely abused its discretion in
the second Resolution when it concluded that that there could be no damage and
prejudice to the government “in the absence of any contention that receipt of such
was tantamount to giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to any party
and to acting with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross excusable
negligence.” That no allegation of “giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference to any party” appears in the Information is due obviously to the fact that
this allegation is not necessary.
_______________
42 See the first assailed Resolution, quoted at pp. 2-3 of this Decision.
517
VOL. 559, JULY 23, 2008 517
People vs. Romualdez
“Giving a private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference” is not
an element that must necessarily be alleged to complete the recital of how
Section 3 (e) is violated because it is only one of two alternative modes of violating
this provision, the other being causing “undue injury to any party, including the
Page 8 of 9
government.” In short, the Information is complete solely on the basis of the “undue
injury” allegation.
Even a cursory examination of the Information would show that an allegation of
“evident bad faith” was expressly made, complete with a statement of how the bad
faith was manifested, that is, “being then the elected Provincial Governor of Leyte
and without abandoning such position, and using his influence with his brother-in-law,
then President Ferdinand E. Marcos, [Romualdez] had himself appointed and/or
assigned as Ambassador to foreign countries. . .”.  Whether this allegation can be
successfully proven by evidence or established through an analysis of the nature of
the power of appointment remains to be seen after trial, not at the motion-to-quash
stage of the case. At this earlier stage, all that is required is for this allegation to be an
ultimate fact directly providing for an element of the offense.
In light of all these, we conclude that the Sandiganbayan grossly and egregiously
erred in the considerations it made and in the conclusions it arrived at when it
quashed the Information against Romualdez, to the point of acting outside its
jurisdiction through the grave abuse of discretion that attended its actions. Its errors
are so patent and gross as to amount to action outside the contemplation of law.
Thus, the declaration of the nullity of the assailed Sandiganbayan Resolutions is in
order.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby GRANT the petition and
accordingly ANNUL the Sandiganbayan’s Resolutions dated 22 June 2004 and 23
November 2004 in CRIM. CASE NO. 26916 entitled People of the Philippines versus
Benjamin “Kokoy” Romualdez. The Sandiganbayan is
518
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Romualdez
hereby ORDERED TO PROCEED with the trial on the merits of the case on the basis
of the Information filed. Costs against the private respondent Benjamin “Kokoy”
Romualdez.
SO ORDERED.
Puno (C.J.), Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona,
Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Nachura and Reyes,
JJ.,  concur.
Leonardo-De Castro, J.,  No part.
Petition granted, Sandiganbayan’s Resolution dated 22 June 2004 and 23
November 2004 annulled. Sandiganbayan ordered to proceed with trial on the merits.
Notes.—The fundamental test of the viability of a motion to quash on the ground
that the facts averred in the information do not amount to an offense is whether the
facts alleged would establish the essential elements of the crime as defined by law,
and in this examination, matters aliunde are not considered. (Mendoza-Ong vs.
Sandiganbayan, 414 SCRA 181 [2003])
The writ of certiorari will not lie against the denial of a motion to quash an
information—the remedy is for petitioner to go to trial on the merits, and if an adverse
decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in a manner authorized by law. (Gandarosa
vs. Flores, 527 SCRA 776 [2007])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 9 of 9