Serapio v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Atty. Edward Serapio was charged with plunder along with former President Joseph E. Estrada and others in Criminal Case No. 26558 before the Sandiganbayan. The charge stemmed from allegations of amassing wealth through illegal activities, including receiving money from illegal gambling and diverting public funds. Petitioner was a trustee and legal counsel of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, which received a P200 million donation from Governor Luis 'Chavit' Singson. Procedural History: The Ombudsman issued a joint resolution recommending the charge of plunder against petitioner and others. Informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan, and an amended Information included petitioner as a co-accused. Petitioner filed several motions, including a motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation, an urgent omnibus motion to hold in abeyance arrest and proceedings, and a motion to quash the amended Information. The Ombudsman denied the motion for reinvestigation, and the Sandiganbayan denied the omnibus motion and the motion to quash. Petitioner also filed an urgent petition for bail. The Sandiganbayan issued resolutions concerning bail hearings, including ordering joint hearings with the trial of former President Estrada, which petitioner assailed. Petitioner filed petitions for certiorari and habeas corpus with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner sought the nullification of the Sandiganbayan's resolutions denying his petition for bail, motion for reinvestigation, and motion to quash, arguing that the amended Information did not sufficiently allege the crime of plunder against him and that he was denied due process. He also sought a writ of habeas corpus for his release.
Issue(s)
Whether the facts alleged in the amended Information against petitioner Serapio constitute the crime of plunder. Whether the amended Information charges more than one offense. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Serapio's motion for reinvestigation. Whether arraignment is a prerequisite for bail hearings. Whether a motion to quash may be filed during the pendency of a petition for bail. Whether the conduct of joint bail hearings for all accused, particularly with the trial of former President Joseph E. Estrada, is mandatory or permissible.
Ruling
The petitions in G.R. No. 148769 and G.R. No. 149116 are dismissed. The resolutions of the Sandiganbayan subject of these petitions are affirmed. In G.R. No. 148468, the petition is partially granted. The resolution ordering a joint hearing of petitioner's petition for bail and the trial of Criminal Case No. 26558 as against former President Joseph E. Estrada is set aside, as is the arraignment of petitioner on July 10, 2001.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court did not agree with petitioner Serapio's assertion that the amended Information lacked allegations of a "combination or series of overt or criminal acts" constituting plunder. Citing its ruling in Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), et al., the Court held that the word "series" is synonymous with "on several instances" and refers to a repetition of the same predicate act, while "combination" contemplates at least two different predicate acts. Subparagraph (a) of the amended Information, which charges Serapio and co-accused with receiving money from illegal gambling "on several instances," sufficiently alleges a series of predicate acts under Section 1(d)(2) of Republic Act No. 7080 (Anti-Plunder Law). It is not necessary to allege a pattern of overt or criminal acts as this is evidentiary, and matters of evidence need not be stated in the Information. Therefore, the amended Information properly charges Serapio with plunder. On Issue 2: The Court rejected Serapio's argument that the amended Information charged him with more than one offense, such as bribery or illegal gambling. The Sandiganbayan correctly held that the acts alleged in the Information are not charged as separate offenses but as predicate acts of the single crime of plunder. The Anti-Plunder Law describes these acts in a generic sense, and the fact that they may also be penalized under other laws is merely incidental. These acts are mentioned solely as constituent elements of plunder and are not to be understood as charging distinct criminal offenses under the Revised Penal Code, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, or other specific statutes. Consequently, the amended Information validly charges Serapio with only one crime, that of plunder. On Issue 3: The Court upheld the Sandiganbayan's denial of Serapio's motion for reinvestigation. Case law dictates that the Supreme Court does not interfere with the Ombudsman's discretion in conducting preliminary investigations, absent grave abuse of discretion, as affirmed in Raro vs. Sandiganbayan and Cruz, Jr. vs. People. Serapio failed to discharge his burden of proving such grave abuse, as the Sandiganbayan affirmed the Ombudsman's probable cause finding after review of the evidence. Furthermore, Serapio's motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman's resolution did not raise grounds of newly discovered evidence or errors of law/irregularities, which are the only grounds for reconsideration under Republic Act No. 6770. The right to a preliminary investigation is statutory, not constitutional, and its denial does not invalidate the information or divest the court of jurisdiction. Serapio was afforded due process through his participation in the initial preliminary investigation by filing his counter-affidavit, and a reinvestigation was deemed unnecessary. On Issue 4: The Court ruled that the arraignment of an accused is not a prerequisite to the conduct of hearings on a petition for bail. A person is entitled to petition for bail immediately upon being deprived of liberty, whether by arrest or voluntary surrender. Citing Lavides vs. Court of Appeals, the Court clarified that granting bail before arraignment prevents an accused from having to choose between filing a motion to quash and obtaining provisional liberty, thus protecting both the right to bail and the right not to be tried on an invalid complaint. Even in cases involving offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, if the evidence of guilt is found not strong after a hearing, bail may be granted prior to arraignment. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering Serapio's arraignment before proceeding with his bail hearing. On Issue 5: The Court found no inconsistency between an application for bail and the filing of a motion to quash. Bail is a security for provisional liberty, ensuring appearance at trial, while a motion to quash challenges the legal sufficiency or defects apparent on the face of the criminal complaint or Information. These two reliefs serve distinct objectives that are not necessarily antithetical. An accused's right to provisional liberty does not preclude the right to challenge the validity of the Information. However, it is conceded that if a motion to quash is granted, leading to the dismissal of the case and the accused's release, the petition for bail may become moot and academic. Thus, Serapio was entitled to file his motion to quash during the pendency of his petition for bail. On Issue 6: There is no specific provision in the Rules of Criminal Procedure or Sandiganbayan rules mandating joint hearings for multiple bail petitions or for a bail petition to be heard simultaneously with the trial of another accused. While the matter is generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court, the Court found that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in ordering that Serapio’s petition for bail be heard jointly with the trial of former President Joseph E. Estrada. The joinder of a summary bail hearing with a full-blown trial changes the entire dimension of the proceeding, becoming antithetical to the summary nature of a bail hearing, as established in Ocampo vs. Bernabe. This would unduly delay the resolution of Serapio's right to provisional liberty, prejudicing him by forcing him to participate in an extensive trial simply to determine his eligibility for bail, thereby undermining the expeditious nature of bail applications.
Main Doctrine
The Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering a joint hearing of petitioner's petition for bail and the trial of the case against former President Joseph E. Estrada on its merits, as this unduly delays the determination of the petitioner's right to provisional liberty. However, the petitions assailing the denial of the motion to quash and the omnibus motion for reinvestigation are dismissed as the amended information sufficiently alleges the crime of plunder and there was no grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman or Sandiganbayan in finding probable cause.