Noveras v. Sandiganbayan [Sixth Division]
This is a criminal case, G.R. No. 245933, decided by the Supreme Court on June 10, 2019. The case involves petitioner Gerardo A. Noveras, who sought to dismiss the criminal case filed against him by the Office of the Ombudsman for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan denying Noveras' motion to quash and motion for leave to file and admit reinvestigation for lack of merit. The Sandiganbayan correctly ruled that the information filed against Noveras alleged all the elements of the crime, and the petitioner failed to show that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying his motion to quash and motion for reinvestigation.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 245933. June 10, 2019.]
GERARDO A. NOVERAS, petitioner, vs.THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN [SIXTH DIVISION] AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 245933 (Gerardo A. Noveras v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan [Sixth Division] and the People of the Philippines)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the January 14, 2019 and March 1, 2019 Resolutions 2 of the Sandiganbayan (SB) in SB-18-CRM-0536 for failure of petitioner Gerardo A. Noveras (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the SB gravely abused its discretion in denying his motion to quash and motion for leave to file and admit the attached reinvestigation for lack of merit. 3 HTcADC
As correctly ruled by the SB, the Information 4 filed against petitioner alleged all the elements of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019, 5 as follows: petitioner and the BAC members, in the performance of their respective administrative and/or official functions, gave RMCR Construction and/or private individual Manding Claro R. Ramos unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference by ensuring the award of the subject contract in their favor. 6 It is settled that there are two (2) ways by which Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 may be violated, namely: (a) by causing undue injury to any party, including the Government; or (b) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference, and that the accused may be charged under either mode or both, 7 as in this case. Moreover, the SB did not err in denying petitioner's motion for reinvestigation for being a prohibited pleading under the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases 8 and for being filed out of time.
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on leave.)"
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-32.
2.Id. at 37-45 and 46-53, respectively. Penned by Associate Justice Sarah Jane T. Fernandez with Associate Justices Karl B. Miranda and Kevin Narce B. Vivero, concurring.
3. Not attached to the rollo.
4.Id. at 185-187.
5. Otherwise known as the "ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT" (August 17, 1960).
6. See rollo, pp. 43-44.
7. See Braza v. SB, 704 Phil. 476, 498 (2013).
8. See III 2., paragraph b (iii) of A.M. No. 15-6-10-SC (April 25, 2017).
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU