Kuizon v. Desierto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complaints were filed against petitioner Benedicto E. Kuizon for Nepotism and Malversation Thru Falsification of Public Documents, alleging the forging of signatures of casual laborers in payroll slips and drawing their salaries. Affidavits from former laborers claimed their signatures were forged and their salaries were taken. Graft Investigation Officers recommended the inclusion of petitioners Rosalina T. Tolibas (Paymaster/Municipal Treasurer) and Joselito Raniero J. Daan (Timekeeper) as respondents. Resolutions recommended the filing of Informations for Malversation and Falsification of Public/Official Document against all petitioners. Another complaint was filed for Malversation of Public Funds Thru Falsification of Public Documents and violation of R.A. No. 3019 against petitioners and other municipal officials for allegedly including terminated workers in payrolls. A resolution found sufficient grounds to hold petitioners for trial for Malversation and Falsification. Procedural History: Petitioners filed counter-affidavits and motions for consolidation. Resolutions recommending prosecution were approved by the Ombudsman. Informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan. Petitioners filed motions for reinvestigation and consolidation, which were granted by the Sandiganbayan. The Office of the Ombudsman's Legal Counsel recommended continued prosecution of all accused, which was approved by the Ombudsman. The Sandiganbayan denied a motion for reinvestigation and to defer arraignment, and petitioners pleaded not guilty. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction, citing Fabian v. Desierto. Petitioners then filed the instant petition with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioners seek to set aside the approval by the Ombudsman of a Memorandum recommending their continued prosecution, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction for various procedural lapses, including denial of due process and lack of reinvestigation.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the petition for certiorari assailing the Ombudsman's resolution in a criminal case. Whether the petition was filed within the reglementary period. Whether petitioners were denied due process by the alleged failure to furnish them copies of adverse resolutions and the denial of their right to file motions for reconsideration. Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in approving the Memorandum recommending continued prosecution despite alleged lack of reinvestigation for some petitioners. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with the trial.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Sandiganbayan is ORDERED to proceed with the trial of the cases with dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals: The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that its jurisdiction extends only to decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases, not criminal cases. The Supreme Court, in Fabian v. Desierto, clarified that appeals from administrative disciplinary cases go to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, but original actions for certiorari under Rule 65, such as from an incident in a criminal action, are within the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Therefore, the petition should have been filed directly with the Supreme Court. On the timeliness of the petition: The petition was filed late. A petition for certiorari must be filed within sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution assailed. The erroneous filing of the petition with the Court of Appeals did not toll the running of the period to file it with the Supreme Court. The present petition was filed on November 24, 1999, which was more than sixty (60) days from the time petitioners were notified of the adverse resolutions issued by the Office of the Ombudsman. On the alleged denial of due process and failure to furnish copies of resolutions: The Court reiterated the ruling in Pecho v. Sandiganbayan that the failure to furnish a respondent with a copy of an adverse resolution does not affect the validity of an information thereafter filed. Such a procedural defect is deemed waived if not seasonably questioned before entering a plea. The Court noted that the resolutions requiring notice were those approved by the Ombudsman, and copies of the approved resolutions were allegedly sent by registered mail. Even if not received, the failure to question this procedural error before pleading constituted a waiver. On the alleged lack of reinvestigation and grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman: The Court found that preliminary investigations were conducted, and petitioners were given opportunities to be heard. While only petitioner Daan filed a counter-affidavit in one instance, and the reinvestigation notice was not sent to Daan and Tolibas, the Court held that the procedural defect was waived by their entry of a plea of "not guilty." The Court also stated that the Ombudsman's approval of the Legal Counsel's memorandum, affirming the investigating prosecutor's findings, did not constitute grave abuse of discretion, as it was a review of the findings and not a new investigation. The Ombudsman's decision prevails over that of the special prosecutor. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan: The Sandiganbayan acted correctly by granting the initial motion for reinvestigation and then denying the subsequent motion to defer arraignment after the Ombudsman's final action. Jurisdiction was acquired over the petitioners when they appeared and pleaded not guilty. The Court reiterated that in the absence of grave abuse of discretion, it will not interfere with the Ombudsman's investigatory and prosecutory powers, and findings of probable cause are entitled to great respect.
Main Doctrine
The erroneous filing of a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals does not toll the running of the period to file the same with the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the failure to furnish a respondent with a copy of an adverse resolution does not affect the validity of an information filed, as such procedural defect is deemed waived if not seasonably questioned before entering a plea. The invalidity or absence of a preliminary investigation does not affect the jurisdiction of the court nor impair the validity of the information.