Case Digest (G.R. No. 160864)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., G.R. No. 160864, and Republic of the Philippines v. Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., G.R. No. 160897, November 16, 2016, Supreme Court First Division, Sereno, C.J., writing for the Court.The complaint originated when the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) filed an Information on 27 November 1989 charging respondent Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. with violations of R.A. No. 3019 based on allegations that he acted as a nominee/dummy of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos in acquiring controlling shares of Bulletin Today Publishing Company and Liwayway Publishing, Inc. An ex parte motion for a warrant of arrest was denied by the Sandiganbayan on 19 January 1990 for lack of probable cause, and the Sandiganbayan directed the PCGG to undertake further steps to sustain the Information.
The PCGG sought relief in this Court (G.R. No. 91741); on 29 March 1990 this Court found no grave abuse in the Sandiganbayan's denial of the warrant and dismissed the petition but allowed the PCGG 60 days to conduct further proceedings. The PCGG then reinvestigated, gathered additional evidence, and filed an Amended Information (admitted by the Sandiganbayan on 8 June 1990), which led the Sandiganbayan to direct issuance of a warrant for respondent's arrest. Respondent's motion to dismiss that Information was treated as a Rule 65 petition (G.R. No. 93884); in a Resolution dated 19 June 2001 the Court again found no grave abuse in the Sandiganbayan's finding of probable cause and ordered the Sandiganbayan to resume proceedings.
Separately, on 20 July 1987 the PCGG had earlier filed a civil enforcement action (Civil Case PCG No. 0022) against respondent and others for alleged recovery of ill-gotten wealth based on substantially the same acts. The PCGG's Security and Investigation Department later collected documentary evidence (checks, audited statements, stock summaries) used to support the Amended Information. When proceedings were set to resume in 2002–2003, the PCGG argued before the Sandiganbayan that Executive Order No. 14 (as amended) empowered it to prosecute ill-gotten wealth cases before the Sandiganbayan.
On 24 April 2003 the Sandiganbayan declared the PCGG's preliminary investigation and the Information null and void, relying on this Court's earlier decision in Cojuangco v. Presidential Commission on Good Governance (G.R. Nos. 92319-20, 2 Oct. 1990), because the PCGG had both gathered evidence and filed a civil complaint before conducting the preliminary investigation, making the PCGG unable to act with the "cold neutrality of an impartial judge." A motion for reconsideration was denied on 14 November 2003.
The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) filed a Rule 45 petition (G.R. No. 160864) on 23 December 2003 and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a separate Rule 45 petition (G.R. No. 160897) on 27 January 2004 seeking reversal of the Sandiganbayan Resolutions; the petitions were consolidated by this Court on 21 January 2004. The OSP and OSG argued, among other points, that (a) the PCGG was authorized by E.O. No. 14 to conduct the preliminary investig...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan err in declaring null and void the preliminary investigation conducted by the PCGG and the Information filed pursuant thereto on due process grounds?
- Did prior rulings—specifically this Court's resolutions in G.R. Nos. 91741 and 93884—or the Sandiganbayan's earlier finding of probable cause validate the PCGG's preliminary investigation or cure ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)