Amarillo v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A complaint-affidavit was filed against petitioners, officials of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Aurora Engineering District, and a private contractor, Carolina Querijero, for estafa through falsification of public documents. The complaint alleged that petitioners simulated a contract for the repair of Pugo and Dyos bridges, claiming they were damaged by flashfloods on November 3, 1995, when in fact, according to barangay officials and a social welfare officer, the bridges were repaired for free by Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) in October or November 1995, and the flashflood occurred on December 24, 1995. Procedural History: The Graft Investigation Officer (GIO) found sufficient basis for a preliminary investigation. Petitioners adopted their previous administrative affidavit as their counter-affidavit. The GIO considered affidavits from barangay officials and a social welfare officer, which contradicted the claim of damage and repair dates. Mayor Salamera, also impleaded, claimed the bridges were damaged on November 3, 1995, and repaired by Caroline Construction. The GIO recommended holding petitioners for trial for two counts of estafa through falsification of official documents. Informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, alleging they were not given a chance to answer the affidavits of the barangay officials. The Office of the Special Prosecutor recommended denial of the motion and the filing of an amended information, noting defects in the original information. Consequently, a second information was filed, and the first was amended. The Petition: Petitioners filed a second motion for leave to file a motion for reinvestigation, presenting an affidavit from an IDC administrative officer attesting that Mayor Salamera requested IDC to allow Querijero to use its equipment for bridge repairs, which IDC granted. The Sandiganbayan denied this motion, citing the prohibition against second motions for reinvestigation under Republic Act No. 6770. A motion for reconsideration was also denied. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan for denying their motions, thereby depriving them of due process and the opportunity to present newly discovered evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners' second motion for leave of court to file a motion for reinvestigation, and whether petitioners were denied due process of law. Whether the affidavit of Mineo F. Taduyo can be considered newly discovered evidence, and whether the Sandiganbayan correctly applied Republic Act No. 6770 in denying the second motion for leave to file a motion for reinvestigation.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Orders of the Sandiganbayan are AFFIRMED. This decision is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and denial of due process: The Court held that petitioners cannot claim denial of due process as they were given the opportunity to be heard. The Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau directed them to submit counter-affidavits, which they opted not to submit directly but instead adopted a previous affidavit. Furthermore, they filed a motion for reconsideration where they assailed the accuracy of the statements of the barangay officials, thereby having an opportunity to explain their side. The Court reiterated that due process requires an opportunity to be heard, which was afforded to the petitioners. On the issue of newly discovered evidence and the prohibition against second motions for reinvestigation: The Court ruled that the affidavit of Mineo F. Taduyo cannot be considered newly discovered evidence. Under the Rules of Court, such evidence must have been discovered after the investigation, could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence during the investigation, and must be material and of such weight that it would probably change the judgment. Taduyo's affidavit failed the second and third requirements. It could have been produced during the investigation, and there was no showing of unavailability of the correspondence. Moreover, even if it could have been produced, it was not material because it merely attested to the request and grant of using heavy equipment, not that the actual repair was seen or personally known by Taduyo. The affidavit also mentioned that IDC itself undertook the construction of the bridges in September-October 1995, which contradicted the claim of repair by Caroline Construction in January 1996. The Sandiganbayan correctly applied Republic Act No. 6770 in denying the second motion for leave to file a motion for reinvestigation. Allowing a third determination of probable cause would lead to endless reevaluations of evidence, which is contrary to the principle that there must be an end to litigation. The Court found that the Sandiganbayan acted in accordance with law and did not exercise its power in an arbitrary or despotic manner, thus refuting the claim of grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the second motion for leave to file a motion for reinvestigation, as the alleged newly discovered evidence was not newly discovered and not material to alter the findings of probable cause, and the petitioners were afforded due process.