RAMISCAL, JR. vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN
446 SCRA 166
Ponente: CALLEJO, SR., J.

FACTS: On December 18, 1997, Luwalhati R. Antonino, a member of the House of

Representatives representing the First District of the Province of South Cotabato,
filed a “Complaint-Affidavit”5 with the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao. She
alleged that anomalous real estate transactions involving the Magsaysay Park at
General Santos City and questionable payments of transfer taxes prejudicial to the
government had been entertained into between certain parties. She then requested
the Ombudsman to investigate the petitioner, Retired Brig. Gen. Jose S. Ramiscal,
Jr., then President of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement and
Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS), together with twenty-seven (27) other
persons7 for conspiracy in misappropriating AFP-RSBS funds and in defrauding the
government millions of pesos in capital gains and documentary stamp taxes.

On January 28, 1999, after the requisite preliminary investigation, Special

Prosecutor Joy C. Rubillar-Arao filed twenty-four (24) separate Informations with
the Sandiganbayan against the petitioner and several other accused. The filing of
the Informations was duly approved by then Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto. The
first twelve (12) Informations were for violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No.
3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. On the other
hand, twelve (12) other separate Informations indicted the accused for Falsification
of Public Documents, defined and penalized under paragraph 4, Article 171 of the
Revised Penal Code.

On February 2, 1999, the petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to Dismiss the

Informations and to Defer the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest, alleging want of
jurisdiction. He, likewise, filed an Urgent Manifestation and Motion to Suspend
Proceedings on February 16, 1999, because of the pendency of his motion for
reinvestigation with the Office of the Ombudsman. The Office of the Special
Prosecutor opposed the said motions.

In a Resolution dated April 5, 1999, the Sandiganbayan denied the earlier motions
filed by the petitioner for lack of merit. Consequently, a warrant of arrest against
him was issued. He posted a cash bail bond for his provisional liberty.

On June 6, 1999, the petitioner filed a “Motion for Reinvestigation”25 with the
Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion in its Order dated June 11,
1999. In the meantime, in a Resolution dated June 9, 1999, the Sandiganbayan
made short shrift of the petitioner’s opposition and denied his plea for the denial of
the appearance of the law firm.

The petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the Sandiganbayan’s Resolution of

June 9, 1999, which was opposed by the prosecution. The Sandiganbayan issued a
Resolution denying the same on October 22, 1999.

The petitioner filed the instant petition.

ISSUE: Whether the the crimes charged are public offenses and, by their very
nature, do not give rise to criminal liabilities in favor of any private party.

HELD: YES. For violations of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019, any party, including
the government, may be the offended party if such party sustains undue injury
caused by the delictual acts of the accused. In such cases, the government is to be
represented by the public prosecutor for the recovery of the civil liability of the
accused.