Raro v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Oscar G. Raro, Corporate Secretary of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), was accused by Luis F. Abaño of violating the Anti-Graft Law (R.A. 3019). The accusations included causing the employment of his family members in the STL project, bad faith dismissal of employees causing damage, and demanding money as his share in the lottery operation. Abaño filed a complaint with the Tanodbayan, which was endorsed to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for fact-finding. Procedural History: The NBI submitted reports with findings and recommendations for further investigation. The Ombudsman issued a Resolution recommending the filing of an information for violation of R.A. 3019. This resolution was reviewed, and an information was eventually filed with the Sandiganbayan charging petitioner with violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. 3019 for allegedly demanding and receiving P116,799.99 from Abaño. Petitioner filed a motion to quash the information, alleging violations of his constitutional rights to due process and speedy disposition of his case due to alleged delay and irregularities in the preliminary investigation. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash. The Petition: Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court, assailing the Sandiganbayan's denial of his motion to quash, arguing that the preliminary investigation was constitutionally defective, hasty, malicious, persecutory, and based on inadmissible evidence, and that the delay violated his rights.
Issue(s)
Whether a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition is the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information. Whether the preliminary investigation conducted by the Ombudsman was constitutionally defective, hasty, malicious, persecutory, and based on inadmissible evidence, thereby violating petitioner's right to due process. Whether the unexplained four-year delay in resolving the preliminary investigation violated petitioner's constitutional rights to speedy trial and due process. Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion to quash the information.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari and prohibition for lack of merit. The Court affirmed the assailed Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan and directed it to proceed with the disposition of the criminal case with deliberate dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Propriety of the Remedy: The Court held that a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition is generally not the proper remedy to assail an interlocutory order, such as the denial of a motion to quash an information. The established rule is to continue with the case and appeal any unfavorable verdict. While exceptions exist for special circumstances demonstrating the inadequacy of appeal, none were shown in this case. However, in the interest of justice, the Court proceeded to resolve the substantive issues. On the Constitutionality of the Preliminary Investigation and Due Process: The Court found no merit in petitioner's contention that the Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan failed to examine the complainant under oath. The Constitution and R.A. 6770 allow complaints to be filed in any form or manner, and the submission of affidavits, while preferable, is not mandatory or jurisdictional. The referral of the complaint to the NBI was for fact-finding, not an abdication of the Ombudsman's duty. The Court also found no violation of due process in the Sandiganbayan's issuance of a warrant of arrest without personally examining the complainant, as the judge is only required to personally evaluate the supporting documents to determine probable cause. The Court found no factual support for these claims. The discrepancy in the dates of the resolution and the information was considered an oversight that did not affect the validity of the information, especially since it had the Ombudsman's imprimatur. The denial of the motion for reinvestigation was based on the merits of the motion, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties applied to the prosecutor. The Court also dismissed the claim that the complainant should be charged as a briber and that the evidence was hearsay, reiterating that the determination of the crime to charge and the sufficiency of evidence for probable cause lie within the Ombudsman's discretion. On the Alleged Delay in Preliminary Investigation: The Court ruled that the four-year delay was not unexplained and did not violate petitioner's right to speedy disposition. The delay was attributed to the thoroughness of the investigation, including the NBI's fact-finding and the review process within the Ombudsman's office. The Court noted that the period from the filing of the counter-affidavit to the resolution was reasonable, and subsequent delays were due to reviews by superiors. The Court emphasized that the Ombudsman's duty to act promptly should not be mistaken for hasty resolutions at the expense of thoroughness and correctness. On the Sandiganbayan's Denial of the Motion to Quash: The Sandiganbayan did not gravely abuse its discretion. The Court reiterated that the Sandiganbayan's authority to determine probable cause is limited to issuing a warrant of arrest, not for justifying the filing or non-filing of an information. The objections raised by the petitioner involved matters of defense that should be passed upon during the trial on the merits. The Court found no compelling justification to disturb the prosecution's finding of probable cause.
Main Doctrine
A special civil action for certiorari and prohibition is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information, as the proper remedy is to continue with the case in due course and, if an unfavorable verdict is handed down, to appeal. However, in the interest of justice, the Court may resolve the issue of whether the Ombudsman conducted the preliminary investigation erroneously and irregularly.