G.R. No. 165510-33 - Romualdez vs. Marcelo

Petitioner Benjamin “Kokoy” T. Romualdez was charged with violation of Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for his alleged failure to file his Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL).
The allegations cover a long period, including his tenure as Technical Assistant in the Department of Foreign Affairs, as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, and as Provincial Governor, spanning from the early 1960s until 1985.

On February 22, 1989, 24 informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 13406-13429) were filed against petitioner before the Sandiganbayan for his failure to file his SAL (covering 1962–1985).
A warrant of arrest was issued on February 28, 1989, but it was never served due to petitioner’s exile from the country.
On October 21, 1991, petitioner filed through counsel a Motion to Recall Warrants of Arrest while also alleging the preliminary investigation by the PCGG was void for lack of jurisdiction.
On November 4, 1991, the Sandiganbayan issued an order to defer enforcement of the arrest warrant under specific conditions, including a cash bond deposit and petitioner’s appearance within a prescribed period.

Petitioner’s failure to comply with the conditions resulted in the Sandiganbayan denying his motion to recall the warrant on January 24, 1992, later reaffirmed by a denial of his motion for reconsideration on April 24, 1992.
Petitioner subsequently filed a petition with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 105248) challenging the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions.
On May 16, 1995, the Supreme Court declared the PCGG’s preliminary investigation invalid for lack of jurisdiction but held that this did not affect the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction or the validity of the informations, and it ordered the suspension of proceedings pending a proper preliminary investigation by the Ombudsman.

Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directive, the Sandiganbayan ordered the OSP/Ombudsman to conduct a proper preliminary investigation and to suspend the proceedings until its completion.
Petitioner again failed to file his required counter-affidavit. He eventually returned to the Philippines on April 27, 2000, and surrendered voluntarily.
A Motion to Quash was filed on June 2, 2000, but during the clarificatory hearing, the Sandiganbayan denied his motion to quash and terminated the preliminary investigation on June 8, 2000.
An arraignment scheduled for June 26, 2000 was reset to July 28, 2000.

On July 27, 2000, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition (G.R. Nos. 143618-41) challenging several Sandiganbayan orders, including the denial of his motion to quash, the termination of the preliminary investigation, and the reset arraignment.
On July 30, 2002, the Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that:

The PCGG, not the Ombudsman, lacked the authority to file the original informations since the offenses charged did not relate to ill-gotten wealth.
The informations were void and could not serve as a basis for criminal prosecution.
The Sandiganbayan had gravely abused its discretion by abruptly terminating the reinvestigation.

As a result, in February 2004, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the original criminal cases (Nos. 13406-13429).
Subsequent developments saw petitioner filing inconsistent pleadings, including a Motion to Dismiss on April 26, 2004, and a counter-affidavit on May 12, 2004.
The OSP, in a memorandum dated July 12, 2004, expunged petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss (deeming it a prohibited pleading) and proceeded with the reinvestigation based solely on the PCGG’s evidence.
The petition ultimately questioned whether the preliminary investigation should continue given that the docket numbers referenced dismissed cases and whether the alleged offenses had already prescribed.

Whether the Ombudsman (or OSP) acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss the preliminary investigation, despite the fact that the original criminal cases (Nos. 13406-13429) had been previously dismissed.

The petitioner asserted that continuing the preliminary investigation on the already dismissed docket numbers amounted to a reversible error.
He contended that the PCGG should have filed new informations with fresh docket numbers if any further proceedings were warranted.

Petitioner argued that the period of prescription had lapsed in February 2001.
Respondents countered that the prescription period was tolled while petitioner was abroad.