Scribd
Upload
73 views

Javier v. Sandiganbayan

Javier was appointed to the Governing Board of the National Book Development Board and received an advance for a book conference in Spain that was later cancelled. She failed to return the funds. She was charged with malversation of public funds under the Anti-Graft Law and malversation of public funds under the Revised Penal Code. Javier argued she was not a public officer and was being charged twice for the same offense. The Supreme Court ruled that Javier was a public officer as her position involved sovereign functions. It also found no double jeopardy because the charges came from different statutes and she had only pleaded to one charge.

Uploaded by

Learsi Afable
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
73 views

Javier v. Sandiganbayan

Javier was appointed to the Governing Board of the National Book Development Board and received an advance for a book conference in Spain that was later cancelled. She failed to return the funds. She was charged with malversation of public funds under the Anti-Graft Law and malversation of public funds under the Revised Penal Code. Javier argued she was not a public officer and was being charged twice for the same offense. The Supreme Court ruled that Javier was a public officer as her position involved sovereign functions. It also found no double jeopardy because the charges came from different statutes and she had only pleaded to one charge.

Uploaded by

Learsi Afable
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Javier v.

Sandiganbayan

FACTS:
Pursuant to R.A. No. 8047, the National Book Development Board (NBDB) was created, having for its
policy the State’s goal in promoting the continuing development of the book publishing industry. In this
regard, Carolina Javier was appointed to its Governing Board as a private sector representative and the
latter was supposed to represent Philippines in a book conference in Spain whereupon a cash advance
for traveling expenses was received by Javier. However, the trip was cancelled, so, the Government
sought the return of said traveling allowance, but Javier failed to return the same. NBDB’s Executive
Director filed information against Javier in the Ombudsman for malversation of public funds and
property, in violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and was charged in the Sandiganbayan for
violation of the said law. The Commission on Audit also charged her with Malversation of Public Funds
under Article 317 of the Revised Penal Code which both cases have eventually consolidated. Javier
filed a Motion to Quash Information and another motion in the criminal case charging under the RPC
by invoking her right against double jeopardy, which were both denied. Javier argues that the
Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction for not quashing
the two informations, stating that (1) she is not a public officer, and (2) she was being charged under
two informations, which is in violation of her right against double jeopardy.

ISSUES:
Whether or not Javier is a public officer and if so, were the two informations charged against Javier in
violation of her right against double jeopardy.

RULING:
YES, Javier is a public officer and there was no violation of her right against double jeopardy.
The powers and functions of NBDB concludes that they partake the nature of public functions.
Notwithstanding that Javier came from private sector to sit as member of NBDB, the law invested her
with some portion of sovereign functions of the government when she was appointed to the Governing
Board in order to see to it that the purposes for which the law was enacted are achieved. Pursuant to the
Anti-Graft Law, one is a public officer if one has been elected or appointed to a public office – Javier
was appointed by the President to Governing Board of NBDB. The law also provides that members of
Governing Board shall receive per diem and such allowances as may be authorized for every meeting
actually attended, subject to pertinent laws, rules and regulations. Also, under the Anti-Graft Law, the
nature of one’s appointment, and whether the compensation one receives from the government is only
nominal, is immaterial because the person so elected or appointed is still considered a public officer.

Regarding the issue of double jeopardy, the court cannot likewise give in to the contentions advanced
by petitioner. Records show that the Informations in the two Criminal Cases refer to offenses penalized
by different statutes, R.A. No. 3019 and RPC, respectively. Javier pleaded not guilty to the Information
for violation of the Anti-Graft Law, however, she was not yet arraigned in criminal case for
malversation of public funds, as she had filed a motion to quash the latter information. Double jeopardy
could not, therefore, attach considering that the two cases remain pending before the Sandiganbayan
and that herein petitioner had pleaded to only one in the criminal cases against her. It is well-settled that
for a claim of double jeopardy to prosper, (1) there is a complaint or information or other formal charge
sufficient in form and in substance to sustain a conviction; (2) the same is filed before a court of
competent jurisdiction; (3) there is a valid arraignment or plea to the charges; and (4) the accused is
convicted or acquitted or the case is otherwise dismissed or terminated without his express consent. The
third and fourth requisites were not present.

You might also like