Case Digest (G.R. No. 136082)
Facts:
Franklin P. Bautista v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), Office of the Ombudsman and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 136082, May 12, 2000, the Supreme Court Second Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court.An anonymous, unsigned, and unverified letter-complaint dated November 20, 1996, purportedly from the Contractors Association of Davao del Sur and the Good Government Employees of Davao del Sur, was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao accusing Franklin P. Bautista, then Mayor of Malita, Davao del Sur, of violating Sec. 3, par. (e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) by causing the hiring of 192 casual employees for political reasons and charging their salaries and honoraria to the peace and order fund despite scant municipal savings.
Graft Investigation Officer II (GIO II) Corazon A. Arancon, acting on the letter-complaint, issued an Order on January 16, 1997 directing Mayor Bautista to submit a counter-affidavit. Bautista filed a counter-affidavit on February 26, 1997 attaching affidavits from several local officials and persons disavowing participation in or knowledge of the complaint and denying the alleged misconduct. After investigation, GIO II Arancon found a prima facie case on May 27, 1997 and forwarded the matter to the Ombudsman, which approved the resolution on October 3, 1997.
An Information charging violation of Sec. 3, par. (e) of R.A. 3019 was filed in the Sandiganbayan as Criminal Case No. 24276. On November 13, 1997, Bautista filed a Motion to Quash the Information arguing (a) the acts charged did not constitute the offense under Sec. 3(e) and (b) the Information charged more than one offense; he also contended the Ombudsman improperly accepted the unsigned, unverified complaint without first requiring the complainants to submit affidavits under Sec. 4, Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the Ombudsman.
The Sandiganbayan denied the Motion to Quash on March 13, 1998, finding the Information sufficiently alleged the essential elements and charged a single offense. A motion for reconsideration filed by Bautista was denied on October 9, 1998. Bauti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner Bautista waive or become estopped from challenging the Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation and the Information by filing a counter-affidavit and permitting the investigation to proceed?
- Does the Information in Crim. Case No. 24276 charge more than one offense under Sec. 3, par. (e) of R.A. 3019, rendering it multiplicitous and subject to quashal?
- Could the casual employees allegedly hired by Bautista be considered "private party" within the meaning of Sec. 3, par. (e) of R.A. 3019, or doe...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)