Diaz v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Solicitor General Frank Chavez accused Ramon Diaz, then PCGG Chairman, of lifting the sequestration on American Inter-fashion. Chavez later accused Diaz of corruption and ineptness. The Ombudsman ordered an investigation, and the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee also investigated the charges. While the Senate Committee dismissed the charges, the Ombudsman panel, represented by Special Prosecutor Jose Parentela, Jr., found probable cause to conduct a preliminary investigation against Diaz. Procedural History: Parentela, Jr. submitted a report recommending a preliminary investigation against Diaz for alleged improprieties in the American Inter-fashion/De Soleil Apparel Manufacturing Corporation (AIF/DSA/GLORIOUS SUN) case and the Metro Port Service, Inc. (METRO PORT) case. The Ombudsman approved the recommendation. Diaz was subpoenaed, submitted a counter-affidavit, and later moved for reinvestigation and disqualification of the Ombudsman. Informations were filed in the Sandiganbayan for violations of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft Law). The Petition: Diaz filed petitions for certiorari and prohibition, alleging denial of due process because the preliminary investigation was conducted by the same persons who gathered the evidence, and that no formal sworn written complaint was filed by Solicitor General Chavez. He also alleged grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman.
Issue(s)
Whether the preliminary investigation was void for being conducted by the same persons who gathered the evidence against the petitioner. Whether the preliminary investigation was invalid because the charges were not made in writing nor under oath.
Ruling
The petitions are DENIED for lack of merit. The preliminary investigation conducted by Special Prosecutor Jose Parentela, Jr. and the informations filed against petitioner Ramon Diaz are valid. The Sandiganbayan is allowed to proceed with the cases.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the preliminary investigation being conducted by the same persons who gathered the evidence: The Court held that the petitioner's allegation of denial of due process on this ground is incorrect. Special Prosecutor Parentela did not "gather" evidence for Chavez; rather, he and another prosecutor merely received the evidence presented by Chavez and the petitioner. The Sandiganbayan found that the preliminary investigation substantially complied with the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Unlike in the Cojuangco case, Parentela was not the accuser and investigator rolled into one; Chavez was the accuser, and Parentela preliminarily investigated the charges and evaluated the evidence to determine if a prima facie case existed. The Court emphasized that Parentela's role was to evaluate the evidence presented by Chavez and the petitioner, not to gather evidence for the accuser. The distinction from Cojuangco v. PCGG is crucial, as in that case, the PCGG itself had gathered evidence and then conducted the preliminary investigation, creating a situation where the investigator was inherently biased. Here, the Ombudsman's office acted as an impartial investigating body, distinct from the complainant. On the issue of the charges not being in writing nor under oath: The Court found no merit in this contention. The Court clarified that the Ombudsman may investigate complaints filed in "any form or manner," even if not drawn up in the usual written and sworn form, as provided by Section 12, Article X of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3, Rule I of Administrative Order No. 07. Solicitor General Chavez had accused Diaz in pleadings in a previous case and testified under oath at a joint investigation. His sworn testimony, as transcribed, provided a sufficient basis for the Ombudsman to investigate. The Court noted that Chavez's accusations were made in pleadings and his testimony was under oath, satisfying the constitutional and administrative provisions allowing investigation of complaints in any form.
Main Doctrine
A preliminary investigation is not rendered void where the investigating prosecutor receives evidence from the complainant and the accused, evaluates it, and files an information, as long as the investigator is not the accuser and has not gathered the evidence for the accuser. The Ombudsman may investigate complaints filed in any form or manner, even if not in writing or under oath, provided they contain sufficient particulars.