Cited Laws
Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan: ( a ) ordered the issuance of warrants of arrest against Sto. Tomas, Magno, Durano, Bitonio, Baliton, Soleta, De Guzman, Tolentino, Cayetano, Macatlang, Oliveros, Cerezo, Velasco, Manalo, and Torres in order for the Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction over them; and ( b ) found it unnecessary to issue warrants of arrest against David, Velarde, Pangilinan, Romero, Garcia, Samia, Geronimo, Guevara, Bundoc, and Ongpin, considering that they have already posted their respective bails, and hence, the Sandiganbayan already has jurisdiction over them. [19] Ongpin, Manalo, Torres, David, and Romero all moved for reconsideration but the same was denied in a Resolution [20] dated September 12, 2013. Meanwhile, on August 28, 2013, Sto. Tomas, Velarde, Magno, Durano, Velasco, Garcia, Samia, Geronimo, Guevara, Bundoc, Soleta, Baliton, Macatlang, Cayetano, and Tolentino (Sto. Tomas, et al .) filed a Motion to Quash; [21] while Bitonio filed a Motion to Quash and to Defer Arraignment [22] on September 2, 2013. On October 7, 2013, Ongpin, Manalo, and Torres, and David and Romero filed separate Manifestations adopting the Sto. Tomas, et al. Motion to Quash; and on October 16, 2013, Pangilinan followed suit and also adopted the same motion. [23] Notably, Olivarez, Cerezo, and De Guzman did not file a similar motion. Both motions essentially raise similar issues and arguments, which the Sandiganbayan summarized as follows: First, the facts charged do not constitute an offense . The motions maintained that undue injury is a necessary element of giving unwarranted benefits as defined by Section 3(e) of RA 3019. Absent any factual averments stated in the Informations relating thereto, no criminal liability may be ascribed against the accused. Second, the questioned transactions cannot be classified as behest loans . The motions stressed that the loans were paid before the due date; hence, the government did not suffer any loss, thereby precluding the presence of undue injury. Further, the motions pointed out that the DBP derived a total of almost PHP 7,000,000.00 in interest income from the loan transactions. Finally, the motions claimed that DVRI was adequately capitalized at the time the loans were contracted and that the loans were adequately secured. [24] In opposition to the motions to quash, the OSP maintained that the factual averments in the Informations are sufficient. In this regard, the OSP pointed out that a violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 may be committed either by causing undue injury, or by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference. Since the Informations already allege the giving of unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference, an allegation pertaining to causing undue injury is no longer necessary. Further, the OSP argued that the other grounds raised by the accused are matters of defense which can be determined only after a full-blown trial. [25] The Sandiganbayan Ruling In a Resolution [26] dated May