NUÑEZ v.

SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. Nos. L-50581-50617 Jan. 30, 1982 Fernando, J.
Article XI - Section 4
Petitioners Respondents
Rufino Nuñez Sandiganbayan & the People of the Phil.

Recit Ready Summary

o This petition assails the validity of the P.D. No. 1486, the presidential decree issued in 1978
which created the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner here was accused before the respondent
Court of estafa thru falsification of public and commercial documents. Petitioner claims that
P.D. No. 1486, as amended by P.D. 1606, is violative of the due process, equal protection,
and ex post facto clauses of the Constitution. The Court ruled that said presidential decree
does not violate the constitutional clauses aforementioned. Firstly, there is no violation of
equal protection since the classification made between public officers and private
individuals as to their different indictment proceedings satisfies the test held in People v.
Vera. Secondly, it is not violative of the ex post facto clause since Court ruled that the
“lawful protection” to which an accused “becomes entitled to” is qualified and not broad in
scope. Thirdly, there is no denial of due process to petitioner because it has been
previously held that if an accused has been heard in a court of competent jurisdiction, and
proceeded against under the orderly processes of law, and only punished after inquiry and
investigation, upon notice to him, w/ an opportunity to be heard, and a judgment awarded
w/in the authority of a constitutional law, then he has had due process of law.

Facts of the Case

 This petition for certiorari and prohibition assails the validity of the P.D. No. 1486, the
presidential decree issued in 1978 which created the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner here was
accused before the respondent Court of estafa thru falsification of public and commercial
documents.
 Petitioner claims that P.D. No. 1486, as amended by P.D. 1606, is violative of due process,
equal protection, and ex post facto clauses of the Constitution.

Issues Ruling
1. W/N P.D. No. 1486, creating the Sandiganbayan, violates the due process, No.
equal protection, and ex post facto clauses of the Consitution.

Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis
1. Petitioner contends that Sandiganbayan proceedings violates his right to equal protection
because his right to appeal has been limited and shrunk in the sense that: (1) questions of
fact & trial evidence cannot be reviewed/appealed since the Supreme Court can only look
into questions of law, and that (2) there is only one chance to appeal conviction by certiorari
to the SC, instead of the two traditional chances: first to the Court of Appeals and thereafter
to the SC. (Nota bene: the creation of the Sandiganbayan has made it so that public officers
indicted of estafa or malversation are only allowed to appeal to the SC, whereas individuals
who don’t belong to the gov’t are allowed to appeal to both the Court of Appeals & the SC).
The Court here ruled that there is no violation of equal protection regarding the classification
 made between public officers and private individuals as to their different indictment
proceedings because such classification satisfies the test held in People v. Vera that it must
be “based on substantial distinctions which make real differences; must be germane to
purposes of the law; must not be limited to existing conditions only, and must apply equally
to each member of the class”. The Court emphasizes that the creation of the
Sandiganbayan as a special court is precisely a response to an urgent problem –
dishonesty in the public service.
2. Petitioner also contends that said P.D. violates the ex post facto provision in the Const. on
the similar premise that his right to appeal has been diluted or shrunk. An ex post facto law
is defined as one which: (1) makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and
which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act; (2) aggravates a crime or makes
it greater than it was when committed; (3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
punishment than what the law provides; (4) alters the rules of evidence, and authorizes
conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of commission;
(5) imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; and
(6) deprives the accused of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled to. The
Court ruled that the “lawful protection” to which an accused “becomes entitled to” is qualified
and not broad in scope. Moreover, the Court expounds that although the creation of the
Sandiganbayan has resulted in the omission of the Court of Appeals as an intermediate
tribunal for him to appeal to, his liberty is still being protected by the fact that the
Sandiganbayan adheres to strict standards such as: the petitioner’s innocence or guilt will
be passed upon by a three-judge division of respondent court requiring a unanimous vote; if
unanimity is not achieved, the presiding justice shall designate two other justices to sit
temporarily w/ the division forming a division of five, and a majority concurrence shall be
now required; his guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; if convicted, he may seek
a review from the same court.
3. The Court also ruled against petitioner’s argument on a denial of due process. In Ong
Chang Wing v. United States, it was held that “xxx if an accused has been heard in a court
of competent jurisdiction, and proceeded against under the orderly processes of law, and
only punished after inquiry and investigation, upon notice to him, w/ an opportunity to be
heard, and a judgment awarded w/in the authority of a constitutional law, then he has had
due process of law.”

Disposition
The Court holds that petitioner was unable to make a case calling for the unconstitutionality of P.D.
No. 1486 as amended by P.D. 1606. Wherefore, petition is DISMISSED.
Separate Opinions
Barredo, concurring.
 Barredo views the Sandiganbayan as a sui generis in its judicial structure as designed by
the makers of the 1971 Const. Moreover, the Const. ordains it to be a special court, but at
the same time it is still subordinate to the Supreme Court.
 The special composition of the Sandiganbayan and the special procedure provided for it by
PD No. 1606 does not infringe the constitutional provision against ex post facto laws.
 Since the Sandiganbayan is a collegiate trial court, it’s obviously improper to make appeals
therefrom to appealable to another collegiate court w/ the same number of judges
composing it.

Makasiar, concurring & dissenting.

 Par. 3, Sec. 7 of PD No. 1606 denies petitioner due process and equal protection
o This is so because the right to appeal to the Court of Appeals and to the SC was
 already secured under Sec. 17 & 29 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, otherwise known
as RA No. 296 as amended, and therefore already part of procedural due process
to which petitioner was entitled at the time of the alleged commission of the crime
charged against him.
o Moreover, the Sandiganbayan is composed of a presiding justice and 8 associate
justices forming 3 divisions w/ 3 justices each. But at present, there are only 6
members of the Sandiganbayan or 2 divisions actually operating. This situation
diminishes to an appreciable extent the chances of an accuse to be acquitted.
Applied to petitioner, Sec. 5 of PD No. 1606 denies him the equal protection of the
law as against those who will be prosecuted when 3 or more members of the
Sandiganbayan will be appointed to complete its membership of 9. Hence, said PD
denies the accused advantages and privileges accorded to other defendants
indicted before other trial courts.
 PD No. 1606 violates the guarantee against ex post facto laws
o The indictment against petitioner accuses him of graft & corruption committed from
July 20, 1977 up to January 12, 1978 which was long before the creation of the
Sandiganbayan in Dec. 10. 1978 by PD No. 1606, which expressly repealed PD
No. 1486, the original charter of the Sandiganbayan promulgated on June 11, 1978.
Hence, prior to the creation of the Sandiganbayan, the petitioner was already
entitled to a right to appeal to both the Court of Appeals and to the SC. This right
was taken away on Dec. 10, 1978 by PD No. 1606, placing petitioner under a great
disadvantage.