Case Digest (G.R. No. 108431)
Facts:
Oscar G. Raro v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan (Second Division), The Honorable Ombudsman and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 108431, July 14, 2000, Supreme Court En Banc, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Oscar G. Raro, then Corporate Secretary of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) and acting manager of its Special Projects Department, supervised an experimental Small Town Lottery (STL) project. On May 20, 1988 Luis (Bing) F. Abano (provincial manager for the STL operator Elmec) filed a complaint with the Tanodbayan (Ombudsman predecessor) accusing Raro of nepotism, wrongful dismissal of employees and extortion/receipt of money totaling about P116,799.99 in violation of R.A. No. 3019. The complaint was docketed OSP‑88‑01263.
The complaint was referred to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for fact‑finding. The NBI produced reports (May–September 1989; disposition July 12, 1989) that identified leads but recommended further inquiry. In March 1990 Ombudsman investigators (GIO II Theresa Medialdea‑Caraos) recommended further NBI investigation; that recommendation was approved. On September 19, 1990 the NBI recommended prosecution. The Ombudsman directed Raro to file a counter‑affidavit; Raro filed his counter‑affidavit on October 25, 1991.
GIO II Caraos on November 29, 1991 issued a resolution finding probable cause for violations of several subsections of R.A. 3019 and recommended filing of information. That resolution was reviewed internally: an Assistant Ombudsman initially recommended dismissal; however, Special Prosecution Officer I Wendell Barreras‑Sulit concluded there was prima facie cause only under Section 3(B) of R.A. 3019 and prepared an information dated May 19, 1992 which was approved and filed with the Sandiganbayan on July 2, 1992.
The Sandiganbayan (Second Division) issued an arrest order (July 6, 1992), later recalled; Raro moved for reinvestigation and, on July 28, 1992, the Sandiganbayan ordered reinvestigation by the Ombudsman and directed prosecutorial action to be completed by August 31, 1992 and to furnish Raro the NBI report. The Ombudsman’s Special Prosecution Officer (Spo III Roger Berbano, Sr.) denied reinvestigation (August 14, 1992) and the Ombudsman approved that denial (August 26, 1992). Raro filed motions for reconsideration and a motion to quash the information, arguing (among others) that (a) the preliminary investigation was sham, hasty and attended by irregularities; (b) the Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan did not personally examine the complainant under oath; and (c) there was an unexplained four‑year delay that violated his right to speedy disposition.
The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash and subsequent motions for reconsideration (October 1992–January 1993), held that the objections raised were evidentiary matters for trial, and set arraignment dates. Raro filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition in the Supreme Court to enjoin the Sandiganbayan, the...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition the proper remedy to assail the Sandiganbayan’s denial of a motion to quash the information?
- Did the Sandiganbayan gravely abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to quash on the ground that the Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation was sham, hasty, and violative of due process (including failure to personally examine the complainant)?
- Did the alleged nearly four‑year delay in the preliminary investigation violate petitioner’...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)