G.R. No. 134307 - Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan

On January 12, 1990, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a complaint (PCGG I.S. No. 74) before the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) against the Administrator and Governing Board of the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA), including petitioner Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., for violation of R.A. No. 3019—alleging misuse of a P2,000,000 PCA special fund donation to a private entity (COCOFED).
The Supreme Court later declared all PCGG preliminary proceedings null and void and directed the PCGG to transmit the records to the Office of the Ombudsman.

In a June 2, 1992 Resolution, the Ombudsman’s panel of investigators recommended filing of an Information against petitioner and five others for violation of Section 3(e), R.A. 3019.
A series of memoranda and orders on alleged prejudicial questions ensued, culminating in a January 16, 1995 Memorandum of the Office of the Special Prosecutor finding no prejudicial question—approved by the Ombudsman on January 26, 1995.

On February 16, 1995, the Ombudsman filed Criminal Case No. 22018 (People v. Cojuangco, et al.) with the Sandiganbayan, which raffled it to the First Division.
On February 17, 1995, the Sandiganbayan issued a warrant of arrest. On February 19, petitioner filed an Opposition to the Warrant with a Motion for Leave to file Reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s resolutions.

On February 22, 1995, petitioner posted bail (with a Manifestation “without prejudice” to his Opposition), and the Sandiganbayan issued a hold-departure order (travel ban) effective February 20, 1995.
Between March 1995 and May 1995, petitioner filed memoranda, motions for reconsideration, and was “conditionally arraigned” on May 25, 1995—solely to accommodate his request to travel pending reinvestigation.

On October 22, 1995, Special Prosecutor Victorio U. Tabanguil recommended dismissal for lack of probable cause; the Ombudsman approved the recommendation on November 15, 1996.
From December 1996 through January 1998, petitioner and the Office of the Solicitor General exchanged manifestations, motions to dismiss, motions for reconsideration, motions to strike out, and compliance with Sandiganbayan orders to justify the case record.

On July 22, 1998, the Supreme Court required the parties to comment on petitioner’s Rule 65 petition for prohibition to dismiss Criminal Case No. 22018 and lift the travel ban.
Between August and November 1998, petitioner filed repeated urgent motions for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction, consolidated replies, and motions for reconsideration; the Office of the Solicitor General ultimately manifested no objection to petitioner’s foreign travel.
The Supreme Court framed three ultimate issues for resolution:

Whether the warrant of arrest issued by the Sandiganbayan is null and void for lack of a personal judicial determination of probable cause as required by the Constitution.
Whether petitioner’s rights to due process, a speedy trial, and a speedy disposition of his case have been violated so as to warrant dismissal of Criminal Case No. 22018.
Whether the hold-departure order barring petitioner from leaving the country without prior court approval should be vacated.