Case Digest (G.R. No. 165510-33)
Facts:
Benjamin ("Kokoy") T. Romualdez v. Hon. Simeon V. Marcelo, in his official capacity as the Ombudsman, and Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. Nos. 165510-33, July 28, 2006, Special First Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Benjamin T. Romualdez was the subject of complaints for alleged failure to file Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth covering various years during his public service. A complaint was filed with the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) in 1987 (complaint dated May 8, 1987), and informations were later filed with the Sandiganbayan in 1989 as Criminal Case Nos. 13406–13429. Those initial proceedings were challenged by petitioner.
In Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court annulled and set aside certain Sandiganbayan orders (including denial of a motion to quash), concluding that the informations had been filed by an unauthorized party; the Court therefore sustained the motion to quash and directed dismissal of Criminal Case Nos. 13406–13429. The Sandiganbayan then issued a minute resolution (Feb. 10, 2004) treating those cases as dismissed and sending them to the archives.
Subsequently, the Office of the Ombudsman (Special Prosecutor) conducted a preliminary investigation and caused the filing of new informations, which were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 28031–28049 before the Sandiganbayan and Criminal Case Nos. 04‑231857–04‑231860 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. The Ombudsman required petitioner to submit a counter‑affidavit on March 3, 2004.
Petitioner sought relief in the Supreme Court by way of a petition (and later a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's September 23, 2005 decision). He argued that (a) the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in initiating the 24 new informations for violation of Section 7, R.A. No. 3019 (Anti‑Graft and Corrupt Practices Act); (b) the Ombudsman could not revive cases already dismissed by the Sandiganbayan; and (c) the offenses had prescribed and therefore the cases pending in the Sandiganbayan and the RTC should be dismissed on that ground.
The Ombudsman and the PCGG filed Comments opposing dismissal; they contended that the Sandiganbayan’s dismissal did not preclude further prosecution where a valid investigation later establishes probable cause, that the 1987 PCGG filing and the 1989 Sandiganbayan informations interrupted prescription, and that petitioner’s absence from the Philippines (1986–2000) tolled prescription under Article 91, Revised Penal Code, applied suppletorily. The Court initially held in its September 23, 2005 Decision that the preliminary investigation by the Ombudsman was valid; ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the preliminary investigation conducted by the Ombudsman in Criminal Case Nos. 13406–13429 a nullity?
- Have the offenses charged against petitioner pre...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)