Case Digest (G.R. No. 112313)
Facts:
Bienvenido S. Evangelista v. Sandiganbayan and Laura G. de Ocampo, G.R. No. 112313, June 16, 1995, First Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court.Private respondent Laura G. de Ocampo filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman on August 2, 1991, charging then Mayor Bienvenido S. Evangelista of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for allegedly maliciously refusing to grant her locational clearance and mayor’s permit for a marine filling station while favoring another applicant. Ombudsman Investigator Francisco Samala recommended filing an Information on May 4, 1992; the case was referred to the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) for review.
Within the OSP review process, Special Prosecution Officer (SPO) Wendell Barreras-Sulit issued a memorandum on October 28, 1992 concurring in the filing and drafted the Information. On November 12, 1992, Special Prosecutor (SP) Aniano Desierto directed a further review by SPO Reynaldo Alhambra, who on November 24, 1992 recommended dismissal. Deputy Special Prosecutor (DSP) Jose Ferrer disagreed and supported filing; SP Desierto initially concurred in Alhambra’s recommendation and Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez approved the dismissal. Private respondent sought reconsideration.
On July 5, 1993, SPO Reynaldo L. Mendoza denied the motion for reconsideration. Following that denial, DSP Ferrer, SP Desierto and Ombudsman Vasquez re-examined the matter and, on the basis of further notations and reconsideration, concluded a prima facie case existed; the Information was then filed with the Sandiganbayan on September 7, 1993. Petitioner moved for reconsideration within the OSP, alleging irregularity due to conflicting internal resolutions; SPO Manuel A. Corpuz denied the motion on September 21, 1993, stating that the issue of a prima facie case lay within the province of the OSP and noting that a preliminary investigation had been conducted.
Petitioner then filed a motion to quash the Information in the Sandiganbayan, contending that the Ombudsman had already dismissed the complaint and that the Information was therefore unlawful; the Sandiganbayan denied the motion on November 8, 1993. Petitioner brought the present challenge to the Supreme Court, principally arguing that conflicti...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to quash the Information?
- Was the Information irregular or invalid because it was allegedly based on conflicting resolutions and a purported final dismissal ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)