Ml8lAM uLlLnSC8 SAn1lACC, peLlLloner, vs. CCn8AuC M. vASCuLZ, Cmbudsman, CuAL8L81C !.

uL
LA LLAnA, Speclal rosecuLor, SAnulCAn8A?An and 8LClCnAL 18lAL CCu81 Cl MAnlLA, respondenLs.
1992 !an 13
Ln 8anc
C.8. nos. 99289-90

u L C l S l C n
8LCALAuC, !.:

ln Lhls peLlLlon for cerLlorarl and prohlblLlon wlLh prellmlnary ln[uncLlon, and Lhe addendum LhereLo,
peLlLloner seeks Lo en[oln Lhe Sandlganbayan and Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourLs of Manlla from proceedlng
wlLh Crlmlnal Case no. 16698 for vlolaLlon of 8epubllc AcL no. 3019, SecLlon 3(e), Crlmlnal Case no. 91-
94333 for vlolaLlon of resldenLlal uecree no. 46, and Crlmlnal Case no. 91-94897 for llbel.

ln Crlmlnal Case no. 16698 1 flled before Lhe Sandlganbayan, peLlLloner sLands charged as follows:

"1haL on or abouL CcLober 17, 1988, or for someLlme prlor or subsequenL LhereLo, ln Manlla, hlllpplnes,
and wlLhln Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhls Ponorable CourL, accused Mlrlam uefensor-SanLlago, belng Lhen Lhe
Commlssloner of Lhe Commlsslon on lmmlgraLlon and ueporLaLlon, wlLh evldenL bad falLh and manlfesL
parLlallLy, dld Lhen and Lhere wllfully, unlawfully and crlmlnally approve Lhe appllcaLlon for legallzaLlon
of allens who arrlved ln Lhe hlllpplnes afLer !anuary 1, 1984 ln vlolaLlon of LxecuLlve Crder no. 324
daLed Aprll 13, 1988 whlch does noL allow Lhe legallzaLlon of Lhe same, Lhereby causlng undue ln[ury Lo
Lhe governmenL and glvlng unwarranLed beneflLs and advanLage Lo sald allens ln Lhe dlscharge of Lhe
offlclal and admlnlsLraLlve funcLlons of sald accused.

ConLrary Lo law."

ln Crlmlnal Case no. 91-94333 2 pendlng before Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL of Manlla, peLlLloner, LogeLher
wlLh ualsy MonLlnola and lermln acla, are accused of a vlolaLlon of resldenLlal uecree no. 46
allegedly commlLLed as follows:

"1haL on or abouL november 28, 1988, or for someLlme prlor or subsequenL LhereLo, ln Manlla,
hlllpplnes, and wlLhln Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhls Ponorable CourL, Lhe accused Mlrlam uefensor-SanLlago,
ualsy MonLlnola and lermln acla, all publlc offlcers, belng Lhen Lhe Commlssloner, Chlef of Lhe 8oard of
Speclal lnqulry and employee of Lhe Commlsslon on lmmlgraLlon and ueporLaLlon, respecLlvely, ln
consplracy wlLh each oLher, dld Lhen and Lhere, wllfully, unlawfully and crlmlnally sollclL and recelve
money, glfLs and oLher valuable Lhlngs from several (l)lllplno and forelgn buslnessmen Lhe same belng
glven by reason of Lhelr respecLlve offlclal poslLlons for pasL favor and expecLed favor and beLLer
LreaLmenL ln Lhe fuLure from sald accused, ln Lhe dlscharge of Lhelr respecLlve offlclal funcLlons.

ConLrary Lo law."

1he lnformaLlon flled by Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Speclal rosecuLor wlLh Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL of Manlla and
dockeLed as Crlmlnal Case no. 91-94897 3 lndlcLs peLlLloner for Lhe crlme of llbel, as follows:

"1haL on or abouL May 24, 1988, aL Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Commlsslon on lmmlgraLlon and ueporLaLlon, orL
Area, Manlla, hlllpplnes, and wlLhln Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhls Ponorable CourL, Lhe accused, Mlrlam
uefensor-SanLlago, a publlc offlcer, belng Lhen Lhe Commlssloner of Lhe Commlsslon on lmmlgraLlon and
ueporLaLlon, acLlng ln such capaclLy and Laklng advanLage of her offlclal poslLlon, dld Lhen and Lhere
wlLh mallce aforeLhoughL, wllfully, unlawfully and felonlously call, uLLer, sLaLe, lmpuLe and make
scurrllous and defamaLory sLaLemenLs agalnsL Marla S. 1aLoy, by porLraylng Lhe laLLer, Lhen Chlef of Lhe
CerLlflcaLe SecLlon, Commlsslon on lmmlgraLlon and ueporLaLlon Lo be 'a corrupL employee, a perennlal
Lrouble-maker who has flled admlnlsLraLlve cases agalnsL all Lhe commlssloners under whom she served'
and Lhe CerLlflcaLe SecLlon of whlch she was Lhe head as 'noL only useless buL Lhe mosL corrupL unlL ln
Lhe Clu,' ln Lhe presence of newspaper reporLers and medla personallLles, Lhereby flndlng prlnL ln Lhe
newspapers, whlch Lend Lo cause dlshonor, dlscredlL and conLempL of sald Marla S. 1aLoy, Lo Lhe
damage and pre[udlce of Lhe laLLer.

ConLrary Lo law."

A Lemporary resLralnlng order was lssued by Lhls CourL on May 24, 1991 4 orderlng Lhe Sandlganbayan
and Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL, 8ranch 3, Lo respecLlvely cease and deslsL from proceedlng wlLh Crlmlnal
lnformaLlons nos. 11698 for vlolaLlon of 8epubllc AcL no. 3019, SecLlon 3(e) and 91-94333 for vlolaLlon
of resldenLlal uecree no. 46. 1hls CourL, ln lssulng Lhe sald resLralnlng order, Look lnLo conslderaLlon
Lhe facL LhaL, accordlng Lo peLlLloner, her arralgnmenL, orlglnally seL for !une 3, 1991, was lnexpllcably
advanced Lo May 27, 1991, hence Lhe advlsablllLy of conservlng and affordlng her Lhe opporLunlLy Lo
avall herself of any remedlal rlghL Lo meeL sald conLlngency.

eLlLloner avers LhaL ln flllng Lhe aforequoLed crlmlnal lnformaLlons, respondenLs Cmbudsman and
Speclal rosecuLor acLed wlLh grave abuse of dlscreLlon amounLlng Lo lack or excess of [urlsdlcLlon.
Speclflcally, peLlLloner conLends LhaL Lhe crlmlnal charges are meanL and lnLended Lo harass her as a
presldenLlal candldaLe, ln vlolaLlon of SecLlon 10, ArLlcle lx-C of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon whlch provldes LhaL
"(b)ona flde candldaLes for any publlc offlce shall be free from any form of harassmenL and
dlscrlmlnaLlon."

eLlLloner llkewlse asserLs LhaL Lhe Cmbudsman vlolaLed Lhe very essence of falr play by chooslng Lo flle
Lhe lnformaLlons aL a Llme when peLlLloner was clearly dlsadvanLaged by Lhe ln[urles whlch she
susLalned ln a vehlcular accldenL, and only afLer Lhree (3) years from Lhe Llme Lhe slxLeen (16) charges
were lnlLlally flled ln 1988 by dlsgrunLled employees of Lhe Commlsslon on lmmlgraLlon and ueporLaLlon
(Clu), and LhaL ln flllng Lhe crlmlnal lnformaLlons [usL a year before Lhe presldenLlal elecLlons,
respondenL Cmbudsman ln effecL wanLs Lo deLaln peLlLloner by reason of her pollLlcal asplraLlons. She
furLher submlLs LhaL Lhe lnsLanL peLlLlon seeks Lo prevenL respondenLs Cmbudsman and Speclal
rosecuLor from proceedlng agalnsL her ln an oppresslve and vlndlcLlve manner and Lo afford adequaLe
proLecLlon Lo her consLlLuLlonal rlghLs. She consequenLly poslLs LhaL, on Lhe foregolng premlses, her
presenL recourse should be consldered as an excepLlon Lo Lhe general prohlblLlon agalnsL peLlLlons of
Lhls naLure ln crlmlnal cases.

ln Lhelr CommenL, respondenLs Cmbudsman and Speclal rosecuLor refuLe Lhe clalms of peLlLloner,
explalnlng ln Lhe process Lhe sequence of evenLs whlch led Lo Lhe flllng of Lhe Lhree (3) lnformaLlons, ln
Lhls wlse:

"1he charges lnvolved ln Crlmlnal Case no. 16698 and Crlmlnal Case no. 91-94333 were Laken
cognlzance of by Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman upon Lhe same havlng been promlnenLly publlshed ln
Lhe !anuary 10, 1989 lssue of Lhe 'Manlla SLandard.' 1he lnvesLlgaLlon was orlglnally handled by Lhen
lnvesLlgaLor CualberLo de la Llana buL, on requesL of Lhe peLlLloner, was reasslgned Lo Lhe Cfflce of Lhe
uepuLy Cmbudsman for Luzon someLlme ln March, 1989. 1he case was handled by an lnvesLlgaLlng
panel whlch submlLLed lLs drafL resoluLlon only on March 29, 1990. AfLer Lhe usual revlews by Lhe Cfflce
of Lhe Speclal rosecuLor, and of Lhe Cfflce of Lhe uepuLy Cmbudsman for Luzon, Lhe resoluLlon was
submlLLed for flnal acLlon of respondenL Cmbudsman ln laLe March, 1991.

"A [udlclous appralsal of Lhe record resulLed ln Lhe lssuance by Lhe Cmbudsman of Lhe Memorandum for
Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Speclal rosecuLor dlrecLlng Lhe flllng of Lhe Lwo (2) lnformaLlons whlch have been
dockeLed as Crlmlnal Case no. 16698 of Lhe Sandlganbayan, and Crlmlnal Case no. 91-94333 of Lhe
Manlla 8eglonal 1rlal CourL . . .

"1he sald Memorandum, as may be noLed on Lhe face Lhereof, ls daLed Aprll 26, 1991, or Lwo (2) days
before peLlLloner meL Lhe vehlcular accldenL on Aprll 28, 1991.

"8espondenL Cmbudsman recelved Lhe lnformaLlons prepared by Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Speclal rosecuLor
only on May 13, 1991. er offlce rouLlne, afLer respondenL Cmbudsman approved Lhe lnformaLlons,
Lhey were forwarded Lo Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Speclal rosecuLor whlch flled Lhe same ln Lhe approprlaLe
courLs on May 13, 1991.

"1he record Lhus aLLesLs Lo Lhe facL LhaL Lhe flllng of Crlmlnal Cases nos. 16698 and 91-94333 was
already a seLLled maLLer as early as Lwo days before peLlLloner's unforLunaLe mlshap. 1helr flllng ln courL
was ln accordance wlLh rouLlne procedure, and lmpelled ln some way by medla's lmpaLlenL and lrrlLaLlng
lnqulrles as Lo whaL respondenL Cmbudsman had done ln Lhe peLlLloner's cases, lnduced no doubL by
premaLure perslsLenL false reporLs LhaL Lhe cases agalnsL peLlLloner had been dlsmlssed by Lhe Cfflce of
Lhe Cmbudsman.

"WlLh respecL Lo Lhe llbel case whlch was flled wlLh Lhe Manlla 8eglonal 1rlal CourL on May 24, 1991,
dockeLed Lhereln as Crlmlnal Case no. 91-94897, Lhe record wlll also show LhaL Lhe lnformaLlon ln Lhls
case could have been flled as early as CcLober 12, 1990 when Lhe resoluLlon recommendlng Lhe
prosecuLlon of peLlLloner for llbel was approved by respondenL Cmbudsman . . . Powever, on Lhe day lL
was Lo be flled, some lawyers of Lhe peLlLloner came and asked Lhe respondenL Cmbudsman Lo defer
Lhe flllng of Lhe lnformaLlon lnasmuch as Lhey lnLend Lo flle a moLlon for relnvesLlgaLlon, whlch Lhey dld
on CcLober 29, 1990. 1he relnvesLlgaLlon was denled ln a Memorandum daLed 23 March 1991 of Speclal
rosecuLlon Cfflcer 8eynaldo L. Mendoza (approved by respondenL Cmbudsman on Aprll 22, 1991) and
an lnformaLlon was subsequenLly flled on May 24, 1991.

"Llke ln Lhe prevlous Lwo (2) cases, Lhe flllng of Crlmlnal Case no. 91-94897 for llbel had no relaLlon aL all
Lo Lhe accldenL whlch befell Lhe peLlLloner on Aprll 28, 1991. lLs flllng afLer LhaL accldenL was caused by a
clearly delaylng LacLlc on Lhe parL of Lhe peLlLloner. lL ls raLher unklnd for peLlLloner Lo lmpuLe lll-
moLlvaLlon on Lhe parL of Lhe respondenLs for someLhlng she herself ls Lo blame." 3

1he CourL accordlngly also Lakes noLe of Lhe aforesald dlsclosures of respondenL Cmbudsman LhaL lL was
peLlLloner, personally or Lhrough counsel, who made represenLaLlons wlLh sald respondenL whlch he
granLed and caused hlm Lo defer acLlon for some Llme on Lhe complalnLs whlch were ulLlmaLely flled
agalnsL her.

lL ls a long-sLandlng docLrlne LhaL wrlLs of ln[uncLlon or prohlblLlon wlll noL lle Lo resLraln a crlmlnal
prosecuLlon for Lhe reason LhaL publlc lnLeresL requlres LhaL crlmlnal acLs be lmmedlaLely lnvesLlgaLed
and prosecuLed for Lhe proLecLlon of socleLy, excepL ln speclfled cases among whlch are Lo prevenL Lhe
use of Lhe sLrong arm of Lhe law ln an oppresslve and vlndlcLlve manner, and Lo afford adequaLe
proLecLlon Lo consLlLuLlonal rlghLs. 6

1he rule ls equally appllcable ln cases where Lhe Cmbudsman had auLhorlzed Lhe Speclal rosecuLor Lo
conducL a prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon or Lo flle an lnformaLlon as ln Lhe case aL bar. lndublLably, such a
responslble offlclal ls vesLed wlLh dlscreLlon and ls endowed wlLh Lhe compeLence Lo deLermlne wheLher
Lhe complalnL flled ls sufflclenL ln form and subsLance Lo merlL such referral. 1he Cmbudsman may
hlmself dlsmlss Lhe complalnL ln Lhe flrsL lnsLance lf ln hls [udgmenL Lhe acLs or omlsslons complalned of
are noL lllegal, un[usL, lmproper or sufflclenL. 1he Speclal rosecuLor, ln case of referral of Lhe complalnL,
may also dlsmlss Lhe same on proper grounds afLer Lhe requlslLe lnvesLlgaLlve and ad[udlcaLory
proceedlngs. 7 8uL lf, as emphaslzed by respondenL Cmbudsman, "Lhe evldence presenLed durlng Lhe
prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon consLlLuLe very valld grounds Lo charge peLlLloner SanLlago and her co-accused
before Lhe Sandlganbayan and Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourLs of Manlla," no compelllng reason would exlsL
for us Lo rule oLherwlse.

eLlLloner, clalmlng excepLlon Lo Lhe lnLerdlcLlon agalnsL a sulL Lo en[oln crlmlnal prosecuLlon, avers LhaL
Lhe lnsLanL peLlLlon seeks Lo prevenL Lhe sLrong arm of Lhe law from belng uLlllzed ln an oppresslve and
vlndlcLlve manner. 8 She Lhen posLulaLes LhaL as one who has conslsLenLly Lopped all ma[or presldenLlal
surveys from 1990 Lo 1991, Lhe flllng of Lhe lnformaLlons agalnsL her wlll pre[udlce her sLandlng ln Lhe
presldenLlal surveys. 1hls ls, conLexLually and for legal lnLenLs and purposes hereln, a mere
verlslmlllLude.

AL any raLe, we deflnlLely cannoL subordlnaLe Lhe demands of publlc lnLeresL and pollcy Lo Lhe pollLlcal
asplraLlons of hereln peLlLloner. We have carefully gone over Lhe records of Lhe case and, conLrary Lo
Lhe preLenslons of peLlLloner, Lhere ls noLhlng Lo show LhaL Lhe lnformaLlons ln quesLlon were flled wlLh
Lhe vlndlcLlve lnLenLlon Lo oppress, harass and dlscrlmlnaLe agalnsL her or Lo vlolaLe her consLlLuLlonal
rlghLs. lL ls slgnlflcanL LhaL peLlLloner falled Lo lmpuLe, much less prove, any lll-moLlve on Lhe parL of
hereln publlc respondenLs. 8espondenL Cmbudsman caLegorlcally sLaLes LhaL, and convlnclngly explalns
why, he "has no purpose, moLlve nor deslre Lo endanger or dlscredlL peLlLloner's asplraLlons for Lhe
hlghesL poslLlon ln Lhe land." 9 1hls ls made no more apparenL Lhan ln Lhe varlous memoranda 10
approved by respondenL Cmbudsman esLabllshlng LhaL Lhe admlLLed facLs of record are sufflclenL Lo
engender a well founded bellef LhaL each of Lhe crlmes charged has been commlLLed, whlch
parenLheLlcally, ls Lhe requlslLe quanLum of evldence aL Lhls posLure of each of sald cases.

eLlLloner submlLs LhaL she cannoL be held llable as charged and ralses Lhe followlng defenses: LhaL Lhe
donaLlons recelved were noL for personal use buL were dlsLrlbuLed Lo Lhe Clu employees ln a raffle held
durlng Lhe Clu ChrlsLmas parLy, LhaL Lhe legallzaLlon of allens who arrlved ln Lhe hlllpplnes afLer
!anuary 1, 1984 was ln accordance wlLh Lhe auLhorlLy vesLed ln her by LxecuLlve Crder no. 324 and was
lnLended Lo assure famlly unlLy, and LhaL Lhe defamaLory words were made agalnsL Marla 1aLoy only ln
self-defense.

We are noL persuaded LhaL we should, ln Lhe presenL recourse, pass upon Lhese asseveraLlons of
peLlLloner whlch we noLe have prevlously been ralsed durlng Lhe prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon. She wlll, of
course, have all Lhe opporLunlLy Lo venLllaLe and subsLanLlaLe Lhe same ln Lhe proceedlngs before
and/or durlng Lhe Lrlal of Lhese cases ln Lhe lower courLs whlch would be Lhe proper sLages and fora for
Lhe ad[udlcaLlon Lhereof. Accordlngly, we quoLe wlLh approval Lhls porLlon of Lhe CommenL of
respondenL Cmbudsman:

"ln her eLlLlon and ln Lhe Addendum hereLo, Lhe peLlLloner had noL made any denlal of Lhe operaLlve
facLs on Lhe basls of whlch Lhe charges have been flled. lnsLead, peLlLloner relles on her percelved
defenses on her lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe sald acLs and Lhe laws appllcable LhereLo.

"1hus, ln Crlmlnal Case no. 91-94333 for a vlolaLlon of .u. 46, peLlLloner admlLs Lhe sollclLaLlon of
donaLlons and Lhe glvlng of Lhe same by Lhose from whom such donaLlons were sollclLed. eLlLloner
[usLlfles Lhe sald acL by clalmlng LhaL Lhe donaLlons were noL glven for her 'personal use' buL for Lhe
purpose of Lhe ChrlsLmas arLy of Lhe Commlsslon on lmmlgraLlon and ueporLaLlon. WheLher Lhls clalm
would negaLe Lhe appllcablllLy of .u. 46 would lnvolve an lnqulry lnLo cerLaln facLs whlch could only be
ascerLalned durlng Lhe Lrlal of Lhe case. SlgnlflcanLly, peLlLloner had noL denled LhaL Lhe sollclLaLlon of
sald glfLs was aL her lnsLance, and LhaL she even scolded a cerLaln 8enaLo Crlanda whom she requesLed
Lo slgn Lhe sollclLaLlon leLLers, buL who refused Lo do so for fear of commlLLlng a vlolaLlon of Lhe law
punlshlng such acL.

"WlLh respecL Lo Crlmlnal Case no. 16698 for a vlolaLlon of Sec. 3(e) of 8.A. no. 3019, peLlLloner has also
noL denled LhaL she admlLLed and approved Lhe legallzaLlon of allens who arrlved ln Lhe hlllpplnes afLer
!anuary 1, 1984, whlch acL ls conLrary Lo Lhe express provlslon of LxecuLlve Crder no. 324. She reasons
ouL her dolng so by puLLlng forLh cerLaln alleged prlnclples and provlslons of Lhe same LxecuLlve Crder
whlch could be lnLerpreLed as glvlng her such auLhorlLy Lo dlsregard Lhe express prohlblLlon ln LxecuLlve
Crder no. 324. Agaln, Lhese are maLLers of defense whlch Lhe peLlLloner should prove durlng Lhe Lrlal.

"ln Lhe llbel case (Crlmlnal Case no. 91-94897), peLlLloner llkewlse admlLs havlng uLLered Lhe words
consLlLuLlng Lhe bases Lhereof ln a Lelevlslon lnLervlew. She does noL deny lLs llbelous naLure. She clalms
[usLlflcaLlon for havlng uLLered Lhe defamaLory words agalnsL complalnanL Marla 1aLoy on Lhe ground of
self-defense. Allegedly, 1aLoy ln an earller lnLervlew, had menLloned abouL deslrlng Lo form a labor
unlon among Lhe employees of Clu, buL LhaL Lhe peLlLloner was agalnsL such move. 8espondenLs fall Lo
see how sald sLaLemenL of 1aLoy could be consldered as defamaLory Lo [usLlfy a llbelous response
LhereLo on Lhe ground of self-defense." 11

WPL8LlC8L, Lhe peLlLlon and Lhe addendum LhereLo are hereby ulSMlSSLu, Lhe wrlLs prayed for are
uLnlLu, and Lhe Lemporary resLralnlng order lssued ln Lhls case ls hereby Lll1Lu.

SC C8uL8Lu.

narvasa (C.!.), Cruz, aras, adllla, 8ldln, Medlaldea and uavlde, !r., !!., concur.
nocon, !., no parL. uld noL parLlclpaLe ln Lhe dellberaLlons.

CuLlerrez, Crlno-Aqulno, 8omero, !!., dlssenL.