Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 18 2005.

G.R. No. 135889 (Ramon A. Gonzales, Joselito P. Barrera, and Robert Cal Catolico, as members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Iloilo Chapter, vs. Sandiganbayan, The Ombudsman and Imelda R. Marcos.)

Before us is a petition for mandamus to compel (1) the Ombudsman to prosecute anew Criminal Cases Nos. 17449, 17450, 17451, 17452, and 17453, entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Imelda R. Marcos and Jose P. Dans, Jr. for violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act); and the (2) Sandiganbayan to decide these cases again.

Records[1] show that sometime in the year 1984, Imelda R. Marcos was the Minister of Human Settlement, while Jose P. Dans, Jr. was the Minister of Transportation and Communication. The two served as ex oficio Chairman and Vice Chairman, respectively, of the Light Rail Transport Authority (LRTA). Imelda R. Marcos was also Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Philippine General Hospital Foundation, Inc. (PGHFI).

On June 8 and June 18, 1984, Imelda R. Marcos, in her capacity as Chairman of PGHFI, and Jose P. Dans, Jr. as Vice Chairman of LRTA, signed two (2) Lease Agreements by virtue of which LRTA leased the Pasay and the Sta. Cruz lots to PGHFI at a monthly rental of P102,760.00 for a period of twenty-five (25) years.

On June 27, 1984, the PGHFI, represented by its Chairman Imelda R. Marcos, sub-leased the Pasay City lot to Transnational Construction Corporation, represented by its President, Ignacio B. Gimenez, for P734,000.00 a month, also for a period of twenty-five (25) years.

Because of these contracts, Imelda R. Marcos and Jose P. Dans, Jr. were charged with violation of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) before the Ombudsman. The cases were later heard by the Sandiganbayan.

In Criminal Cases Nos. 17449, 17451 and 17452, the Sandiganbayan acquitted both accused but convicted them in Criminal Cases Nos. 17450 and 17453. Thus, they filed with this Court petitions for review on certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 126995, "Imelda R. Marcos vs. Sandiganbayan and the People of the Philippines;" and G.R. No. 127073, "Jose P. Dans, Jr. vs. People of the Philippines."

On January 29, 1998, this Court rendered its Decision in G.R. No. 126995 affirming the conviction of Imelda R. Marcos in Criminal Case No. 17450 and acquitting her in Criminal Case No. 17453. However, upon her motion for reconsideration, she was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 17450.

In G.R. No. 127073, this Court acquitted Jose P. Dans, Jr. in Criminal Cases Nos. 17450 and 17453.

In the instant petition for mandamus, petitioners[2] initially alleged that as lawyers and citizens, they have the legal standing to file the same against respondents. They averred that "the acquittal of respondents on the ground, among others, that they are entitled to speedy trial motu proprio invoked by this Court is extrajudicial and invalid, hence, cannot be the basis for the court's assumption of jurisdiction to acquit Imelda R. Marcos on the merits."

In its Resolution dated November 10, 1998, this Court directed both respondents to comment on the instant petition.

On December 7, 1998, counsel for Jose P. Dans, Jr. submitted his comment stating that the latter died on November 29, 1998, hence, the instant petition against him has become moot and academic.

Thus, we will resolve the issues posed by petitioners only as against respondent Imelda R. Marcos.

In her comment, Imelda R. Marcos alleged that the petition lacks merit and should, therefore, be dismissed. She contends that petitioners have no standing to file this petition; that mandamus does not lie to review or control the exercise of discretion; and that the relief prayed for in the petition will place respondents in double jeopardy.

It is basic that in order for a party to have legal standing to institute an action, such party must have a right to be protected or an interest to be enforced. He must show that he has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the alleged illegal conduct of government.

"Legal standing" or locus standi refers to a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury because of the challenged governmental act. The requirement of standing, which necessarily "sharpens the presentation of issues," relates to the constitutional mandate that this Court settle only actual cases or controversies. Thus, generally, a party will be allowed to litigate only when (1) he can show that he has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury because of the alleged illegal conduct of the government; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action.[3]

Here, there is no showing that petitioners have been prejudiced or suffered damages by the acquittal of respondent Imelda R. Marcos. In fact, they did not allege that they filed the petition to protect their individual rights or interests. Nor is there any indication that they will be benefited by the prosecution and re-trial of the cases anew by respondents Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan.

Moreover, Section 3, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:

"SECTION 3. Petition for mandamus. - When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent."

Elementary is the rule that mandamus will not lie to review or control the exercise of discretion. Verily, respondents Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan can not be compelled, through mandamus, to prosecute and hear the subject criminal cases anew, such actions being discretionary on their part.

Also, granting the relief prayed for by petitioners will place respondents in double jeopardy.

Section 21, Article III of the Constitution, provides:

"SECTION 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act."

The requisites of double jeopardy are:

"x x x (1) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second, (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated, and (3) a second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first. Legal Jeopardy attaches only (1) upon a valid indictment, (2) before a competent court, (3) after arraignment, (4) when a valid plea has been entered, and (5) when the defendant was acquitted or convicted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused."[4]

Obviously, the above requisites are present here. Should we compel the Ombudsman to prosecute and the Sandiganbayan to hear the said criminal cases all over again, respondent Imelda R. Marcos' right against double jeopardy will be violated.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioners.

Panganiban, J. dissents and reiterates his Dissenting Opinion in Marcos vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 126995, October 6, 1998.

Davide, Jr., CJ., on leave.

Very truly yours.

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

[1] Marcos vs. Sandiganbayan (First Division), G.R. No. 126995, October 6, 1998, 297 SCRA 95, 107-108; Dans, Jr. vs. People, G.R. Nos. 127073 & 126995, January 29, 1998, 285 SCRA 504.

[2] Petitioner Ramon Gonzales is now deceased.

[3] Tolentino vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 148334, January 21, 2004, 420 SCRA 438-439. See also Sanlakas vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 159085, February 3, 2004, 421 SCRA 657; Francisco, Jr. vs. Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang Filipino, Inc., G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003, 415 SCRA 44, 55; Fariñas vs. The Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 147387, December 10, 2003, 417 SCRA 503, 504.