Fuentes v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Carlos C. Fuentes, a sales representative for Davao Toyozu, Inc., was involved in transactions with the Municipality of Baganga, Davao Oriental, for the supply of six mini dump trucks and for bulldozing services. The Municipality, under Mayor Remegio Nazareno, initiated public bidding for the dump trucks, with Davao Toyozu, Inc. being the lowest bidder. Purchase orders were issued, and the trucks were delivered and accepted. Payments were made for four units, but two remained unpaid. New Mayor Gerry Morales assumed office and, along with Municipal Treasurer Francisco Jimenez, Jr., refused to approve the payment for the remaining two trucks and for the bulldozing services, citing various reasons including the withdrawal of vouchers by petitioner and the need for review. Petitioner filed an administrative complaint against Morales and Jimenez for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman initially found probable cause and filed an Information with the Sandiganbayan. The respondents moved for reinvestigation, admitting available funds but citing petitioner's withdrawal of documents as the reason for non-payment. The Sandiganbayan granted the reinvestigation. A special audit was conducted by the Commission on Audit (COA), which found irregularities and defects in the transactions, recommending that the claims should not be paid. Based on this audit and the Special Prosecutor's memorandum, the Ombudsman recommended the withdrawal of the Information. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion to withdraw, dismissing the case without prejudice, finding the absence of evident bad faith and undue injury. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner seeks the nullification of the Sandiganbayan's Resolutions granting the motion to withdraw the Information and denying his motion for reconsideration, arguing that the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to question the Sandiganbayan's Resolution dismissing the case without prejudice. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in granting the Special Prosecutor's motion to withdraw the Information.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The assailed Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Propriety of the Remedy: The Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was an inappropriate remedy. The Sandiganbayan's resolution dismissing the case without prejudice was a final disposition, leaving nothing further for the court to do. Therefore, the proper remedy should have been a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Court noted that even if treated as a Rule 45 petition, it was filed out of time, as it was filed beyond the reglementary period after notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. The filing of a certiorari petition does not toll the reglementary period for filing an appeal. On Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan. It reiterated the principle that the determination of probable cause during preliminary investigation is a function of the Ombudsman, and courts generally should not interfere unless the finding is tainted with grave abuse of discretion. However, once a case is filed in court, any disposition, including dismissal, rests on the sound discretion of the trial court. The Sandiganbayan, in granting the motion to withdraw the Information, exercised its own independent assessment of the reinvestigation report, particularly the findings of the State Auditors. The Court found that the Sandiganbayan correctly concluded that essential elements of the crime, namely evident bad faith and undue injury, were absent, as supported by the audit findings which indicated irregularities and defects in the transactions, justifying the withholding of payment. The Court emphasized that the Special Prosecutor's recommendation to withdraw the Information was based on a reinvestigation and audit, and the Sandiganbayan's approval was a valid exercise of its discretion.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to question a resolution of the Sandiganbayan dismissing a case without prejudice, as the proper remedy is a petition for review under Rule 45. Furthermore, courts should not interfere with the Ombudsman's investigatory power and authority to determine probable cause, except when the finding is tainted with grave abuse of discretion. However, once a case is filed in court, any disposition rests on the sound discretion of the court, which may grant or deny a motion to dismiss filed by the prosecution based on its own independent assessment.