Romualdez v. Marcelo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Twenty-four informations were filed against petitioner Benjamin "Kokoy" T. Romualdez before the Sandiganbayan for alleged failure to file his Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL) from 1962 to 1985. A warrant of arrest was issued but not served due to petitioner's exile. Petitioner sought to recall the warrants, questioning the preliminary investigation conducted by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) for lack of jurisdiction. Procedural History: The Sandiganbayan initially deferred the arrest warrant's enforcement on conditions, which petitioner failed to meet, leading to the denial of his motion to recall. This Court, in a prior decision (G.R. No. 105248), declared the PCGG's preliminary investigation invalid for lack of jurisdiction but ordered the Ombudsman to conduct a proper preliminary investigation and suspended proceedings. Petitioner returned to the Philippines and filed a motion to quash, which the Sandiganbayan denied, terminating the preliminary investigation. This Court, in G.R. Nos. 143618-41, annulled the Sandiganbayan's orders, holding that the PCGG could not file the informations and that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in terminating the reinvestigation. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the cases. Subsequently, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP)/Ombudsman directed petitioner to submit a counter-affidavit for a new preliminary investigation, which petitioner failed to do, instead filing a motion to dismiss. The OSP denied the motion to dismiss, deemed petitioner to have waived his right to file a counter-affidavit, and recommended the filing of new informations based on the complainant's evidence. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari assailing the resolutions of the OSP/Ombudsman recommending the filing of informations. He argued that the respondent acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in denying his motion to dismiss the preliminary investigation, as the previous cases had already been dismissed. He also contended that the offenses had prescribed. The issues presented were whether the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss and whether the offenses had prescribed.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion to dismiss the preliminary investigation. Whether the offenses charged against petitioner have prescribed.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The resolutions dated July 12, 2004, and September 6, 2004, of the Office of the Special Prosecutor are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the Ombudsman did not act with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion to dismiss the preliminary investigation. The Ombudsman has the constitutional and statutory authority to conduct preliminary investigations. The denial was proper because the motion to dismiss was a prohibited pleading under Section 3(c) of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and Section 4(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, which disallows such motions except for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner's argument that the cases were already dismissed was not a ground for lack of jurisdiction. Furthermore, the previous dismissal of informations by the Sandiganbayan was without prejudice to the filing of new informations by the Ombudsman should probable cause exist, as directed by this Court in a prior ruling. The use of old docket numbers was merely for reference, and new cases with new docket numbers were subsequently filed. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the allegation of prescription of offenses is a matter of defense that must be settled in a full-blown trial, not at the preliminary investigation stage. The offense charged is under Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019, with a prescriptive period of 15 years under Section 11 of the same statute. Section 2 of Act No. 3326 provides that prescription begins to run from the commission of the violation or its discovery, and is interrupted by proceedings against the guilty person. The Court noted that the issue of prescription involves contentious facts regarding the time of commission, discovery, and interruption of proceedings, which require the reception of evidence. Petitioner's failure to raise the defense of prescription in his motion to dismiss before the Ombudsman further supported the conclusion that it should be resolved during trial.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the Ombudsman's authority to conduct a preliminary investigation and recommend the filing of informations for violation of Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) despite previous dismissals of related cases. The Court held that a motion to dismiss a preliminary investigation is a prohibited pleading unless based on lack of jurisdiction, and that failure to file a counter-affidavit constitutes a waiver. Furthermore, the issue of prescription of offenses is a matter of defense to be resolved during trial, not a ground for dismissal at the preliminary investigation stage, especially when the prescriptive period may have been tolled.