Ramiscal v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Jose Ramiscal, Jr., then President of the AFP-Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS), approved the acquisition of land in General Santos City. Bilateral deeds of sale were executed at ₱10,500.00 per square meter, which petitioner caused to be paid. Subsequently, Atty. Nilo J. Flaviano executed unilateral deeds of sale for the same property, reflecting a lower purchase price of ₱3,000.00 per square meter, which became the basis for the transfer certificates of title. Congresswoman Luwalhati R. Antonino filed a complaint-affidavit against petitioner and others for violation of RA 3019 and malversation through falsification of public documents. Procedural History: The Ombudsman found probable cause against petitioner for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and falsification of public documents. Informations were filed. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was initially handled by various offices within the Ombudsman. A panel of prosecutors recommended denying the motion and filing another information, finding probable cause for petitioner's continued prosecution. The Ombudsman approved this recommendation. Petitioner filed a second motion for reconsideration. Despite this, the Sandiganbayan proceeded with the arraignment, entering a plea of not guilty for petitioner. Petitioner then filed a motion to set aside his arraignment pending resolution of his second motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner sought to annul the Sandiganbayan's Resolution denying his motion to set aside his arraignment, arguing that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion when it denied petitioner’s motion to set aside his arraignment pending resolution of his second motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause against him? Whether the filing of a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause bars arraignment; including the procedural aspect of the motion, the nature of petitioner's defenses, the definition of grave abuse of discretion, and the effect of a certiorari petition on principal proceedings.
Ruling
The petition has no merit. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated 5 April 2006, which denied petitioner's motion to set aside his arraignment. The decision is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to set aside arraignment: The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, as amended, sanction the immediate filing of an information even during the pendency of a motion for reconsideration. Section 7, Rule II of these Rules explicitly states that the filing of a motion for reconsideration shall not bar the filing of the corresponding information in court. Consequently, if a motion for reconsideration cannot bar the filing of an information, it logically cannot bar the arraignment, which follows the filing of the information. The Court also noted that the grounds for suspension of arraignment under Section 11, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court were not present in this case. Petitioner failed to establish any valid ground for suspension, thus the Sandiganbayan was mandated to proceed with the arraignment within the period prescribed by law, specifically Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8493 (Speedy Trial Act of 1998). On the issue of whether the filing of a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause bars arraignment: The Court found that petitioner's second motion for reconsideration was a prohibited pleading. The Ombudsman, through a panel of prosecutors, had already denied his first motion for reconsideration in a memorandum dated 19 December 2005, which effectively overruled the earlier recommendation to drop the cases against him. Under Section 7, Rule II of the Ombudsman's Rules of Procedure, only one motion for reconsideration is allowed. Allowing further motions would lead to endless litigation. Therefore, the second motion for reconsideration was procedurally infirm and could not serve as a basis to suspend the arraignment. The Court agreed with the Sandiganbayan that petitioner's defenses, such as his reliance on subordinates and the sufficiency of grounds for conspiracy charges, were evidentiary in nature and are best ventilated during the trial. The Court reiterated that it generally refrains from interfering with the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause. The Court clarified that once a case is filed with the Sandiganbayan, it is the Sandiganbayan, not the Ombudsman, that has full control of the case. The Court reiterated that grave abuse of discretion refers to the exercise of power in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or despotic manner. The Court reminded the parties that the mere filing of a petition for certiorari does not automatically suspend the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a motion for reconsideration of a resolution finding probable cause does not bar the filing of the corresponding information in court, nor does it bar the arraignment of the accused. The Sandiganbayan correctly denied the motion to set aside arraignment when no valid ground for suspension of arraignment was established.