People v. Parojinog
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: An anonymous letter prompted an investigation into Reynaldo O. Parojinog, Sr., then Mayor of Ozamiz City, and his daughter, Nova Princess E. Parojinog-Echavez, for alleged violation of Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The investigation stemmed from a special audit report by the Commission on Audit (COA) which disclosed deficiencies in the procurement for the improvement/renovation of a multi-purpose building. The COA found that the project was awarded to Parojinog and Sons Construction Company, managed by respondent Echavez, while respondent Mayor Parojinog, her father, represented the local government unit as the end-user. This familial relationship, falling within the third civil degree of consanguinity, was deemed a violation of Section 47 of the Government Procurement Reform Act. 2. Procedural History: Following the COA report, a formal complaint was filed by the Ombudsman Field Investigation Unit. After respondents submitted their counter-affidavits and other pleadings, a Resolution finding probable cause to indict them for violation of Section 3(h) of RA 3019 was approved by the Ombudsman. Respondents' motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, an Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan. The respondents filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash the Information and dismiss the case, arguing that the facts alleged did not constitute an offense and that their right to a speedy disposition of cases had been violated. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion, quashing the Information and dismissing the case. The People of the Philippines filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the Sandiganbayan. 3. The Petition: The People of the Philippines filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the Sandiganbayan's Resolutions. The petitioner argued that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in reckoning the delay from the fact-finding investigation stage, in merely resorting to mathematical computation of delay without considering surrounding circumstances, and in finding fatal defects in the motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court, in its decision, found that the Sandiganbayan erred in dismissing the case based on the violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases, as the period from the fact-finding investigation should not be counted. The Court also found that the Sandiganbayan erred in its procedural findings regarding the motion for reconsideration. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Sandiganbayan's resolutions, and gave the prosecution an opportunity to amend the Information against respondent Nova Princess E. Parojinog-Echavez, as respondent Reynaldo O. Parojinog, Sr. had passed away.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in reckoning the conduct of proceedings and imputation of delay from the fact-finding investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman. Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in merely resorting to a mathematical computation of the period constituting the alleged delay, without regard to the facts and circumstances and relevant precedents; and whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in finding that violations of Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court were fatal to the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Whether the facts charged in the Information constituted an offense under Section 3(h) of RA 3019. Acknowledgment of the death of respondent Mayor Parojinog and its effect on the case.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated April 7, 2017 and June 14, 2017, issued by the Sandiganbayan are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Prosecution is given the chance to AMEND the Information against respondent Nova Princess E. Parojinog-Echavez for violation of Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019. The case against the deceased respondent Reynaldo O. Parojinog, Sr. is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion regarding the speedy disposition of cases: The Court held that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case based on the violation of the respondents' right to speedy disposition of cases. The Court clarified that the period for fact-finding investigations, prior to the filing of a formal complaint, is not included in the determination of inordinate delay. This ruling abandons the previous stance in People v. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division which included fact-finding investigations. The Court emphasized that proceedings are not yet adversarial during the fact-finding stage, and the period should commence from the filing of the formal complaint and the conduct of the preliminary investigation. In this case, the period from the filing of the formal complaint (December 8, 2014) to the filing of the Information (November 23, 2016), which is less than two years, was not attended by vexatious, capricious, or oppressive delays. The respondents also did not raise the issue of speedy disposition until after the Ombudsman's resolution finding probable cause. On the issue of procedural violations regarding the motion for reconsideration and the Sandiganbayan's ruling on the insufficiency of the Information: The Court found that while there were technical defects in the petitioner's motion for reconsideration concerning the notice of hearing and the setting of the hearing date, these did not render the motion a mere scrap of paper. The Court noted that the respondents were afforded the opportunity to be heard and filed their opposition, thus satisfying the requirements of procedural due process. The Court also decided to relax the strict application of the rules of procedure in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, considering the merit of the petition. The Court noted that the Sandiganbayan granted the motion to quash the Information on the ground that the facts charged did not constitute an offense. However, since the Court found no violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases, the case should not have been dismissed outright. Pursuant to Section 4, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, the prosecution should be given an opportunity to amend the Information to correct any defect. The Court pointed out that the petitioner did not assail the Sandiganbayan's finding regarding the insufficiency of the allegations in the Information. Therefore, the prosecution is given the chance to amend the Information. On the elements of Section 3(h) of RA 3019: The Sandiganbayan's finding that the Information was deficient in alleging the elements of Section 3(h) of RA 3019 was not directly assailed by the petitioner. The Sandiganbayan had ruled that the Information did not sufficiently allege that Mayor Parojinog had any interest in the construction company, nor how he intervened or participated in furtherance of such interest, or that he had any prohibited financial interest. The acceptance of the completed project by the local government unit, represented by the Mayor, was deemed insufficient to establish intervention or participation, especially since the bidding and awarding were done by the DPWH. On the issue of the deceased respondent: The Court acknowledged that respondent Mayor Parojinog had died during the pendency of the case. Consequently, the Information should only be filed against the surviving respondent, Nova Princess E. Parojinog-Echavez.
Main Doctrine
The period for fact-finding investigations, prior to the filing of a formal complaint, is not included in the determination of whether the right to speedy disposition of cases has been violated. The reckoning point for such determination starts from the filing of the formal complaint and the subsequent conduct of the preliminary investigation. Furthermore, a motion to quash based on the facts not constituting an offense should be given an opportunity for amendment by the prosecution.