Baterina v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case stemmed from Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) cases involving the utilization of PDAF funds of lawmakers, including petitioner Salacnib F. Baterina, then Representative of the 1st District of Ilocos Sur. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed a complaint against petitioner for misuse of his PDAF allotment for 2007 amounting to P35,000,000.00. Subsequently, a new investigation was initiated by the Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB), covering the same SARO and additional PDAF amounts. Petitioner alleged he filed a Counter-Affidavit to the FIO-Complaint, but the OMB stated he did not, leading to his waiver of the filing thereof. On May 4, 2016, the OMB issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause to indict petitioner for violations of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the RPC. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied. Procedural History: Seven (7) Informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion seeking to quash the Informations, citing violations of his right to due process, flawed preliminary investigations, and inordinate delay in filing. The Sandiganbayan denied the Omnibus Motion in its first assailed Resolution, and subsequently denied the Motion for Reconsideration in its second assailed Resolution. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set aside the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ruling that the OMB has the power to order a fact-finding investigation after it has already initiated a preliminary investigation on the NBI-Baligod Complaint. Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ruling that petitioner was not denied due process of law. Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ruling that the right of petitioner to a speedy disposition of a case had not been violated.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Resolutions dated September 22, 2017 and December 12, 2017 of the Sandiganbayan, Second Division, are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the OMB's power to conduct further fact-finding investigation: The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's ruling that the OMB may refer a case for further fact-finding investigation pursuant to Section 2, Rule II of OMB Administrative Order (AO) No. 07. The Court disagreed with the petitioner's interpretation that once the OMB makes a choice from the enumerated actions, it cannot pursue another. The Court emphasized that the OMB's functions are investigatory and prosecutorial, and it is not bound by the findings of the NBI, which are merely recommendatory. The OMB has a wide latitude to act on criminal complaints against public officials, and its determination of probable cause is a highly factual matter that the Court defers to. On the issue of denial of due process: The Court found no denial of due process. Petitioner argued he was denied his right to be heard when his Counter-Affidavit to the FIO-Complaint was allegedly not considered. However, the Court held that any perceived defect in the observance of due process was cured by the filing of his Motion for Reconsideration before the OMB, wherein he raised his defenses and arguments. The Court reiterated that a party who was afforded the opportunity to seek reconsideration of an action or ruling cannot successfully invoke denial of due process. Petitioner was afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain his side. On the issue of violation of the right to speedy disposition of a case: The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's ruling that the petitioner's right to a speedy disposition of the case had not been violated. While the period from the NBI-Baligod Complaint to the filing of Informations was over three years, the Court considered the complexity of the case, involving multiple SAROs, a significant amount of money, numerous respondents from different agencies, and the need for the OMB to verify project implementation. The Court also noted that the issue of delay was raised for the first time in the Omnibus Motion before the Sandiganbayan. Given these factors, the delay was deemed justified and not prejudicial to the petitioner's rights.
Main Doctrine
The Sandiganbayan correctly affirmed that the Office of the Ombudsman may refer a case for further fact-finding investigation pursuant to Section 2, Rule II of OMB Administrative Order No. 07. Furthermore, the Sandiganbayan correctly ruled that the petitioner was not denied due process of law, as any procedural defect was cured by his filing of a motion for reconsideration, and that the petitioner's right to a speedy disposition of the case was not violated, considering the complexity of the transactions and the number of respondents involved.