People v. Sanciangco
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute centers on an accusation that petitioners Jesus E. Sanciangco, Jr. and Napoleon E. Sanciangco, as Mayor and President of the Association of Barangay Councils respectively, allegedly refused to sign a business permit for a cockfight unless a promised donation of P3,000.00 was paid to the Association. This alleged refusal occurred despite the coliseum having paid all required fees and licenses. The complaint was filed by private respondent Dominador B. Borje for violation of Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. 2. Procedural History: Following the complaint filed by private respondent Borje, a preliminary investigation was initiated. However, several prosecutors from the Office of the City Fiscal and the Tanodbayan inhibited themselves from resolving the case. The records were eventually transmitted to the Office of the Tanodbayan in Manila for a preliminary investigation. Special Prosecutor Eduardo R. Benitez issued a Resolution on June 7, 1985, finding prima facie evidence against the petitioners. Subsequently, an information was filed before the Sandiganbayan on June 26, 1985. The petitioners' motions for reconsideration and reinvestigation, as well as a subsequent motion for reconsideration of the denial, were all denied by the Sandiganbayan. 3. The Petition: The petitioners are before this Court seeking a review of the Sandiganbayan's proceedings. They contend that the proceedings are null and void due to the absence of a proper preliminary investigation conducted by the Tanodbayan, arguing that the Tanodbayan's stated intention to conduct such an investigation in Manila was not fulfilled. Furthermore, they argue that the Tanodbayan considered evidence, specifically the sworn statement of Engr. Estanislao Bodiongan, which was not made available to them during the initial stages, thus depriving them of the opportunity to controvert it. They assert that the lack of a preliminary investigation and the consideration of undisclosed evidence render the indictment invalid.
Issue(s)
Whether the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan are null and void due to the absence of a preliminary investigation conducted by the Tanodbayan, and whether the Sandiganbayan erred in denying the petitioners' motion for reconsideration and/or reinvestigation.
Ruling
The Court granted the petition, set aside the Resolution of the Tanodbayan dated June 7, 1985, and all subsequent acts. The Tanodbayan was ordered to conduct a preliminary investigation of the case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the absence of a preliminary investigation and the denial of the motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation: The Court held that the absence of preliminary investigations does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case, nor does it impair the validity of the information or render it defective. However, the Court reiterated the ruling in People v. Gomez (117 SCRA 72, 77-78), citing People vs. Casiano (1 SCRA 478), which states that if there were no preliminary investigations and the defendants, before entering their plea, bring the attention of the court to this absence, the court, instead of dismissing the information, should conduct such investigation, order the fiscal to conduct it, or remand the case to the inferior court so that the preliminary investigation may be conducted. In this case, the Tanodbayan had the authority to conduct the preliminary investigation. The Court found that the Tanodbayan, by issuing a resolution finding prima facie evidence and approving the filing of an information without completing the preliminary investigation it had undertaken to conduct, failed to comply with the procedural requirement. The subsequent consideration of evidence not previously made available to the petitioners further underscored the procedural infirmity. Therefore, the Court found it proper to order the Tanodbayan to conduct the preliminary investigation.
Main Doctrine
The absence of a preliminary investigation does not affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case nor does it impair the validity of the information. However, if the defendants, before entering their plea, bring to the court's attention the absence of a preliminary investigation, the court should conduct the investigation, order the fiscal to conduct it, or remand the case to the inferior court for such investigation, instead of dismissing the information.