ROSALINDA PUNZALAN AND RAINIER PUNZALAN VS. JUDGE RUBEN R.

PLATA
A.M. NO. MTJ-00-1301. DECEMBER 18, 2001
PUNO, J.:
FACTS:
An information for attempted homicide allegedly committed against Rainier Punzalan, was filed against
Michael Plata. The accused therein, twenty-year old Michael Plata, is the son of respondent Judge Plata.
Michael Plata appealed to the Chief State Prosecutor the resolution in I.S. No. 97-10732 upon which the
information in Criminal Case No. 66879 was based. The Chief State Prosecutor set aside the said resolution
upon finding that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were conflicting, and more importantly, that
Dencio dela Pea voluntarily, spontaneously, and knowingly admitted that it was he who accidentally shot
Rainier Punzalan. The Chief State Prosecutor directed the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong to cause the
withdrawal of the information for attempted homicide against Michael Plata.
After the information against Michael Plata was filed and while it was not yet withdrawn, numerous cases were
filed by respondent's wife Rosario, his son Michael and his driver Robert Cagara, the Platas' house boarder
Dencio dela Pea and Rolando Curampes, against herein complainant Rosalinda, her sons Rainier and
Randall, and the latter's friends who were eyewitnesses to the shooting incident.
Precioso R. Perlas and Ma. Teresa C. Manansala, on behalf of complainants Rosalinda B. Punzalan and Rainier
B. Punzalan, filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) a Sworn Complaint against respondent
judge for grave misconduct, lack of moral character and oppressive conduct unbecoming a judge.
Respondent judge denies having exerted influence over the Mandaluyong City prosecutors who filed the set of
cases without preliminary investigations as he claims that he does not even know them. He stressed that he
had no participation in the filing of all the cases cited by complainants, except for I.S. No. 97-11766, the robbery
charge filed by his son where he (Judge Plata) had to file a Supplemental Affidavit as he was the registered
owner of the vehicle subject of the robbery
They settled on a compromise agreement. But the Complainants moved for the revival of the administrative
action against the Judge because of his unbecoming of his position and his grave abuse of discretion.
"Respondent bound himself to pay the sum of P180,000.00 payable in four (4) monthly installments in
consideration for the withdrawal of the criminal case for attempted homicide and herein administrative case
but he reneged on said promise. Adding insult to injury, respondent merely rationalized that he was financially
hard-up and claimed that herein complainant was only after monetary compensation and not really (sic) to
exact judicial relief. Respondent judge's explanation of financial difficulties cannot be countenanced.
Compromise agreement entails reciprocal concessions, non-compliance of (sic) which raises doubt as to
respondent's sincerity and honest desire to avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced."

ISSUE: Whether or not the preliminary investigations can be terminated by reasons of compromise
agreements?
RULING: YES
Section 5, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court pertaining to the disbarment and discipline of lawyers provides, viz:
"No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement, compromise,
restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same."

DISINI VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. NOS. 169823-24; 174764-65 SEPTEMBER 11, 2013

BERSAMIN, J.:
FACTS:
The Office of the Ombudsman filed two informations dated June 30,2004 charging Disini in the Sandiganbayan
with corruption of public officials, penalized under Article 212 in relation to Article 210 of the Revised Penal
Code (Criminal Case No. 28001), and with a violation of Section 4(a) of Republic Act 3019 (R.A. No. 3019),
also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Criminal Case No. 28002). In this 2 actions it alleged
his confederations with the late President Marcos and His family. Gaining wealth in conspiracy with the
Marcoses.
Disini filed a motion to quash, alleging that the criminal actions had been extinguished by prescription, and that
the informations did not conform to the prescribed form. The Prosecution opposed the motion to quash. Disini
voluntarily submitted himself for arraignment to obtain the Sandiganbayans favorable action on his motion for
permission to travel abroad. He then entered a plea of not guilty to both informations. Sandiganbayan (First
Division) denied his motions.
Hence, the petitioner filed a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court for the lack of jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan for this case.
ISSUE: Whether or not Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction?
RULING: YES.
(PRELIMINARY INVERSTIGATION): Whether or not PCGG can conduct PI?
RULING: NO.
Presidential Commission on Good Government(PCGG) filed this cases.
Through its letter dated April 8, 1991,16 the PCGG transmitted the records of Criminal Case No. 28001 and
Criminal Case No. 28002 to then Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez for appropriate action, to wit:
Although the authority of the PCGG has been upheld by the Supreme Court, we are constrained to refer to you
for proper action the herein-attached case in view of the suspicion that the PCGG cannot conduct an impartial
investigation.
x x x The PCGG and the Solicitor General finding a prima facie basis filed a civil complaint against petitioner
and intervenors alleging substantially the same illegal or criminal acts subject of the subsequent criminal
complaints the Solicitor General filed with the PCGG for preliminary investigation. x x x.
Moreover, when the PCGG issued the sequestration and freeze orders against petitioners properties, it was on
the basis of a prima facie finding that the same were ill-gotten and/or were acquired in relation to the illegal
disposition of coconut levy funds. Thus, the Court finds that the PCGG cannot possibly conduct the preliminary
investigation of said criminal complaints with the "cold neutrality of an impartial judge," as it has prejudged the
matter. x x x18
xxxx

The Court finds that under the circumstances of the case, the PCGG cannot inspire belief that it could be
impartial in the conduct of the preliminary investigation of the aforesaid complaints against petitioner and
intervenors. It cannot possibly preside in the said preliminary investigation with an even hand.
The Court holds that a just and fair administration of justice can be promoted if the PCGG would be prohibited
from conducting the preliminary investigation of the complaints subject of this petition and the petition for
intervention and that the records of the same should be forwarded to the Ombudsman, who as an independent
constitutional officer has primary jurisdiction over cases of this nature, to conduct such preliminary
investigation and take appropriate action.
It appears that the resolutions of the Office of the Ombudsman, following its conduct of the preliminary
investigation on the criminal complaints thus transmitted by the PCGG, were reversed and set aside by the
Court in Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Desierto, with the Court requiring the Office of the
Ombudsman to file the informations that became the subject of Disinis motion to quash in Criminal Case
No.28001 and Criminal Case No. 28002.
It is underscored that it was the PCGG that had initially filed the criminal complaints in the Sandiganbayan,
with the Office of the Ombudsman taking over the investigation of Disini the directive to the PCGG to refer the
criminal cases to the Office of the Ombudsman on the ground that the PCGG would not be an impartial office
following its finding of a prima facie case being established against Disini to sustain the institution of Civil
Case No. 0013.