PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

Imelda Romualdez-Marcos vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 126995, October

6, 1998
IMELDA R. MARCOS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 126995, October 6, 1998
Purisima, J.
Facts:
1.            On  June 8, 1984, IMELDA MARCOS and JOSE DANS, as Chairman and  Vice
Chairman of the Light Railway Transit Authority (LRTA) entered into a Lease
Contract with the Philippine General Hospital Foundation (PGHFI) involving an
LRTA property  in Pasay City for P102,760.00 per month for 25 years;
2.            On June 27,1984, the PGHFI subleased the said property for P734,000.00 per
month to the Transnational Construction Corporation represented by one Ignacio
Jumenez;
3.            After   petitioner’s husband was deposed as President of the Philippines,
she and Dans were charged of alleged violation of Section 3 [g] of RA 3019,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act before the
Sandiganbayan;
4.            After trial , the First Division of the Sandiganbayan failed to comply with
the legal requirement that all the 3 justices must be unanimous in its Decision
because Justice Garchitorena and Justice Jose Balajadia voted for the conviction of
both accused while Justice Narciso Atienza voted to acquit them;
5.            Thereafter, Justice Garchitorena as Presiding Justice issued Administrative
Order No. 288-93 constituting a Special Division of  five and designating Justices
Augusto Amores and Cipriano del Rosario;
6.            On September 21, 1993, Justice Amores wrote Justice Garchitorena that he
be given 15 days his Manifestation. On the same date, however, Justice Garchitorena  
dissolved the division of 5 allegedly because he and Justice Balajadia had agreed to
the opinion of Justice del Rosario;
7.            On September 24, 1993, a Decision was rendered convicting the 
petitioner and Dans of violation of Sec. 3 [g] of RA 3019;
8.            On June 29, 1998, the Third Division of the Supreme Court by a vote of 3-
2 affirmed the conviction of the petitioner but acquitted DANS;
9.            Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration and at the same time
prayed that her Motion be heard by the Supreme Court en banc claiming that her
right to  due process of law, both  substantive and procedural, was violated:
a.             as a result of the fact that she was convicted as a result of the alleged
disparity of the rentals agreed upon with PGHFI and the subsequent sub-lease
contract between PGHFI and Transnational Construction Corporation; and
b.            the First Division convicted her after Justice Garchitorena  dissolved the
Special Division of 5 after a lunch in a Quezon City restaurant where they agreed
to convict her in one case and acquit her in her other cases. The said meeting was
attended by another  justice who is not a member of the First Division or the
Special Division in violation of the Rules of the Sandiganbayan which requires that
sessions of the court shall be done only in its principal office in Manila and that
only justices belonging to the division should join the deliberations.
Held:
The petitioner is hereby acquitted.
1. The great disparity between the rental price of the lease agreement signed by the
petitioner (P102,760.00 per month)  and the sub-lease rental (P734,000.00 per month)
does not necessarily render the monthly rate of P102,760.00 manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the government in the absence of any evidence using rentals of
adjacent properties showing that the rentals in the property subject of the lease
agreement  is indeed very low. NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WAS PRESENTED BY THE
PROSECUTION REGARDING THE RENTAL RATE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES.. As such,  the
prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner   reasonable doubt.
2. The court notes likewise the bias and prejudice of Presiding Justice
Garchitorena against the petitioner as shown by his  leading, misleading and
baseless hypothetical questions of said justice to RAMON F. CUERVO, witness for
the petitioner. Said justice asked 179 questions to the witness as against the
prosecutor who cross-examined the witness which was 73. Said number of
questions could no longer be described as “clarificatory questions”. Another
ground therefore for the acquittal of the petitioner is that she was denied IMPARTIAL
TRIAL before the Sandiganbayan. This is one reason why the case could no longer be
remanded to the Sandiganbayan especially so that the other Sandiganbayan Justices
in the Special Division of 5 have retired. There is therefore no compelling reason why
the case should still be remanded to the lower court when all the evidence are
already with the Supreme Court.
(NOTE: The vote was 9-5 for Acquittal. CJ Narvasa, Justices Regalado, Davide, Jr.,
Romero, and Panganiban voted for conviction while Justice Vitug was the only Justice
who voted for the return of the case to the Sandiganbayan “to allow the corrections
of the perceived ‘irregularities’ in the proceedings below.)