Radaza v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In preparation for the 12th ASEAN Summit in 2007, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) facilitated a street lighting project in Cebu, Mandaue, and Lapu-Lapu cities. In January 2007, several organizations alleged anomalies in pricing and called for an investigation. The Ombudsman-Visayas found prima facie evidence of overpricing due to collusion between winning bidders, private contractors, and the City Governments of Mandaue and Lapu-Lapu. Petitioner Arturo O. Radaza, then City Mayor of Lapu-Lapu City, was among those recommended for indictment for violation of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Procedural History: Initially, Radaza was recommended for indictment for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. However, the Ombudsman-Visayas amended the charges to Section 3(g) of RA 3019, filing an Information on January 24, 2008. Radaza filed a Motion for Reconsideration, questioning his indictment based solely on his signature on the Program of Works and Detailed Estimates (POWE). He also filed motions to defer/recall arrest warrants and for judicial redetermination of probable cause. The Sandiganbayan initially denied his omnibus motion, stating that passing on probable cause would be redundant after issuing arrest warrants. Subsequently, the Sandiganbayan ordered a reinvestigation. Following the reinvestigation, the Ombudsman-Visayas issued a Supplemental Resolution on May 4, 2009, reverting the charge to Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and filing an Amended Information. Radaza moved to quash this Amended Information, arguing it was filed without the approval of the incumbent Ombudsman. The Sandiganbayan denied his motion to quash in its November 2, 2011 Resolution and subsequently denied his Motion for Reconsideration in its February 21, 2012 Resolution. The Petition: Radaza filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Supreme Court, assailing the Sandiganbayan's Resolutions denying his Motion to Quash Amended Information. He argued that the Amended Information was invalid due to the lack of approval from the incumbent Ombudsman at the time of filing, thus divesting the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction. He also contended that there was no probable cause to indict him.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's Motion to Quash the Amended Information, considering the propriety of a Petition for Certiorari against such a denial. Whether the Amended Information is valid despite lacking the approval of the incumbent Ombudsman at the time of its filing, and whether the Sandiganbayan acquired jurisdiction over the case. Whether lack of probable cause is a ground to quash the Amended Information, considering the sufficiency of the allegations in the Informations.
Ruling
The Petition is dismissed. The Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan denying Arturo O. Radaza's Opposition and Motion to Quash Amended Information are affirmed. The Sandiganbayan is directed to proceed with the arraignment of Arturo O. Radaza.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of a Petition for Certiorari against a denial of a motion to quash and whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion: The Court reiterated that denials of a motion to quash are interlocutory orders and are generally unreviewable by appeal or certiorari. Certiorari is a remedy of last resort, and its availability is barred if another plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law, such as proceeding to trial. The Court found that Radaza's case did not fall under any of the jurisprudential exceptions where certiorari may be allowed against an interlocutory order. The Court clarified that certiorari corrects errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. Radaza's arguments, which pertained to the Sandiganbayan's appreciation of evidence and application of law, constituted an attack on the correctness of the court's judgment, not a demonstration of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that mere allegations of wrongful conclusions do not rise to the level of grave abuse of discretion. On the lack of authority of an officer to file an Information and the Sandiganbayan's acquisition of jurisdiction: While the lack of authority of an officer to file an Information is a ground for quashal under Section 3(d), Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, the Court held that this deficiency is formal, non-jurisdictional, and curable. Citing Gomez v. People, the Court stated that an unauthorized filing, if done without bad faith or criminal intent, is considered valid as the officer acts as a de facto officer. Such deficiency does not affect the trial court's acquisition of jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person of the accused. The Court noted that the lack of a preliminary investigation is also a statutory privilege, not a constitutional right, and does not affect the court's jurisdiction or the validity of an Information. The Court found that Radaza had submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by filing multiple pleadings, motions, and remedies, including a motion for judicial redetermination of probable cause and an application for bail. His conditional arraignment for travel abroad further estopped him from assailing the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction over his person. On the sufficiency of the allegations in the Informations and lack of probable cause: The Court examined the elements of violations under Section 3(e) and 3(g) of RA 3019 and found that both the original and amended Informations adequately alleged these elements against Radaza. The Court noted that Radaza's arguments regarding his mere signature on the POWE constituted defenses that should be threshed out in a full-blown trial, not in a preliminary investigation or a motion to quash. The Court concluded that the Informations were not defective and that the Sandiganbayan had acquired jurisdiction over the offenses and the person of Radaza.
Main Doctrine
Denials of a motion to quash are interlocutory orders generally unreviewable by appeal or certiorari, as certiorari is a remedy of last resort available only when there is no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Furthermore, certiorari corrects errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment; an act of a court or tribunal can only be considered with grave abuse of discretion when it is done in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.