Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez previously filed a petition (G.R. No. 105248) assailing the validity of twenty-four informations filed against him for violation of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3019 (failure to file statements of assets and liabilities). The issue was whether PCGG Commissioner Augusto E. Villarin had the authority to conduct the preliminary investigation. In a decision on May 16, 1995, the Supreme Court declared the preliminary investigation invalid for lack of jurisdiction over the offenses, as they did not relate to alleged ill-gotten wealth but solely to bare physical non-compliance with the duty to file statements of assets and liabilities. However, the Court held that the invalidity of the preliminary investigation did not impair the validity of the informations or the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, but directed the Sandiganbayan to suspend proceedings and require the Office of the Ombudsman to conduct a proper preliminary investigation. Procedural History: In compliance, the Sandiganbayan directed petitioner to submit a counter-affidavit. Petitioner, being in exile, failed to do so. Upon his return and surrender on April 27, 2000, he posted bail. The Sandiganbayan then directed the Special Prosecutor to submit the result of any reinvestigation. A clarificatory hearing was set, but petitioner's counsel was not properly notified. Subsequently, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the informations, arguing the PCGG Commissioner lacked authority to file them. The Sandiganbayan, on June 8, 2000, denied the Motion to Quash without granting the prosecution time to oppose and terminated the reinvestigation, setting the arraignment for June 26, 2000. An oral motion for reconsideration was also denied the same day. The arraignment was later reset to July 28, 2000. The Petition: Petitioner filed the instant petition seeking to annul the Sandiganbayan's orders dated June 8, 2000, and to prohibit the implementation thereof, praying for a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to enjoin his arraignment.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's Motion to Quash the informations, given that the PCGG Commissioner who filed them allegedly had no authority to do so. Whether the Sandiganbayan complied with the Supreme Court's directive in G.R. No. 105248 to order the Ombudsman to conduct a proper preliminary investigation. Whether petitioner was denied due process by the Sandiganbayan's alleged prejudgment of the issues.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed orders of the Sandiganbayan dated June 8, 2000, are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Sandiganbayan's denial of the Motion to Quash: The Supreme Court reiterated that while the invalidity of a preliminary investigation does not affect the jurisdiction of the court, this principle applies when the information is filed by the proper officer. In this case, the defect was that the PCGG Commissioner who filed the informations lacked the authority to do so, which is a ground for quashing under Rule 117, Section 3(d) of the Rules of Court. The Court distinguished this from previous cases where the issue was solely the absence of a preliminary investigation, not the lack of authority of the filing officer. An information filed by an unauthorized party is considered null and void and cannot be cured by amendment; a new information must be filed by the proper officer. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to quash the informations. On compliance with the directive for a proper preliminary investigation: The Court found that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion when it abruptly terminated the reinvestigation being conducted by Prosecutor Lucero. The directive for a preliminary investigation was based on the ruling that the right to such investigation is substantive, and petitioner's right was violated by an unauthorized officer. The Sandiganbayan's premature termination of the reinvestigation prevented the fulfillment of this directive and denied petitioner his right to due process. On denial of due process and prejudgment: The Court found that the Sandiganbayan's actions, particularly the denial of the Motion to Quash without giving the prosecution time to oppose and the immediate setting of arraignment, indicated a prejudgment of the issues. Given the finding that the informations were defective due to lack of authority of the filing officer, the Court deemed it unnecessary to further pass upon this assignment of error, as the defect itself rendered the proceedings invalid and a gross infringement of petitioner's right to due process. The Court emphasized that courts must uphold the law and procedure to ensure fairness and justice.
Main Doctrine
An information filed by an unauthorized officer is null and void and cannot be cured by amendment or subsequent proceedings, necessitating a new information filed by the proper officer. The denial of a motion to quash on this ground, when such defect is evident, may constitute grave abuse of discretion, warranting certiorari.