Nicart v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint filed by Nilcar Mosende, et al., against Luz B. Ty, the municipal treasurer of San Policarpo, Eastern Samar, for misappropriation of over P4.1 million in public funds, based on findings by the Commission on Audit (COA). Ty, in turn, filed an affidavit-complaint against petitioner Conrado B. Nicart, Jr., then the municipal mayor, alleging he influenced her to violate office rules and misappropriate funds. Ty claimed Nicart instructed her to issue checks to third parties which were encashed by his wife, induced her to withdraw large sums from municipal coffers for his benefit, and used her cash advances for unauthorized purposes. Nicart countered by accusing Ty of buck-passing and filed his own charges for malversation and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. A COA audit report concluded that P1,180,000.00 in cash advances remained unaccounted for and unliquidated, with both Ty and Nicart deemed responsible. Procedural History: Following a preliminary investigation consolidating multiple complaints, the Office of the Ombudsman recommended the prosecution of both Nicart and Ty for Malversation of Public Funds. An information was filed with the Sandiganbayan, docketed as Criminal Case No. 24674, charging them with appropriating, misappropriating, and converting P4,106,489.15 in public funds. After posting bail, Nicart moved for a reinvestigation, which was denied. He then filed an Urgent Motion to Defer Proceedings with a Motion for Leave to File a Petition for Review with the Ombudsman, which the Sandiganbayan denied, deeming it a prohibited second motion for reconsideration and noting the matters were evidentiary. Nicart's subsequent Urgent Omnibus Motion was also denied by the Sandiganbayan, which found probable cause for malversation and denied his plea to quash the information. The Sandiganbayan also issued a resolution suspending Nicart from office for ninety days, citing Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019. The Petition: Petitioner Conrado B. Nicart, Jr. filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul the Sandiganbayan's orders and resolutions dated July 23, 1999, January 30, 2001, and February 15, 2001. He challenged the denial of his motion to defer proceedings and his motion to quash the information, arguing that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion. Nicart also questioned the validity of his ninety-day preventive suspension, contending it exceeded the sixty-day limit prescribed by the Local Government Code. However, the Supreme Court noted that the issue of preventive suspension had become moot as Nicart had already served the suspension. The Court also found that the Sandiganbayan correctly applied Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 for the suspension and that its denial of the motion to quash was based on a proper evaluation of probable cause, dismissing the petition for failure to demonstrate grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's Urgent Motion to Defer Proceedings. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's Urgent Omnibus Motion and finding probable cause for malversation. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the preventive suspension of the petitioner for ninety days.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. Costs against the petitioner. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari, affirming the Sandiganbayan's orders and resolutions.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the Urgent Motion to Defer Proceedings: The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion to defer proceedings. The Court found that the motion partook of a prohibited second motion for reconsideration, violating the Office of the Ombudsman's one-motion rule. Furthermore, the matters raised were evidentiary in nature and should be ventilated during trial, not at that stage. The Sandiganbayan's denial was not capricious, oppressive, or wanting in logic, thus not warranting invalidation by certiorari. On the denial of the Urgent Omnibus Motion and finding of probable cause: The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's denial of the petitioner's motion to quash the information and its finding of probable cause for malversation. The Court emphasized that while the institution of a criminal suit rests on the prosecutor's discretion, the trial court has the duty to evaluate the prosecution's determination of probable cause, especially when confronted with a motion to quash alleging grave abuse of discretion. The Sandiganbayan independently evaluated the evidence, including the COA audit report and NBI findings on questioned documents, which substantiated the charge of malversation against the petitioner. The variance in amounts and dates between the information and the audit report did not vitiate the information, as a preliminary investigation only requires a prima facie showing that an offense was committed and the accused probably committed it. On the preventive suspension: The Supreme Court noted that the issue of the propriety of the 90-day preventive suspension had become moot and academic as the petitioner had already served his suspension. However, the Court clarified that the Sandiganbayan correctly ordered the suspension based on Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019, as malversation of public funds is an offense involving fraud against government funds. The Court reiterated the mandatory nature of preventive suspension for public officers indicted under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, provided it does not exceed the maximum period of ninety days.
Main Doctrine
The Sandiganbayan's denial of a motion to defer proceedings and its resolution finding probable cause for malversation were not tainted with grave abuse of discretion, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any capricious, oppressive, or illogical basis for these actions. The court correctly applied the one-motion rule for reconsideration and independently evaluated the evidence presented.