G.R. No. 143618-41 - Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan

Petitioner Benjamin (Kokoy) Romualdez initiated an earlier petition (G.R. No. 105248) contesting twenty-four informations filed by the PCGG for alleged failure to file his statements of assets and liabilities from 1962 to 1985 during his government service.
The charges rested on his non-compliance with the mechanical duty of filing annual statements, not on allegations of accumulating ill-gotten wealth.
The preliminary investigation, conducted by PCGG Commissioner Augusto E. Villarin, was declared invalid because:

The investigation was unnecessary since the crimes charged did not relate to any crony-related acquisition of wealth.
Even if the case involved non-filing, nothing in the indictments established a connection with the purposes of the ill-gotten wealth cases linked to the Marcos family.

Despite the declared invalidity of the preliminary investigation, the Sandiganbayan held that such invalidity did not affect the jurisdiction of the Court or the sufficiency of the informations.
As a remedy, the Sandiganbayan suspended the proceedings in Criminal Cases Nos. 13406-13429 and directed that the Office of the Ombudsman conduct a proper preliminary investigation.

In November 1995, following the Court’s directive, the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution requiring petitioner to submit his counter-affidavit within fifteen days and simultaneously directed the PCGG to file any reply pleading.
Petitioner, then in exile, did not submit the counter-affidavit; he only returned to the Philippines on April 27, 2000, when he voluntarily surrendered and posted the required bail bond.
On May 8, 2000, the Sandiganbayan set a ten-day period for Special Prosecutor Evelyn T. Lucero to submit the results of any reinvestigation.

Special Prosecutor Lucero scheduled a clarificatory hearing on June 2, 2000, and requested a thirty-day extension to submit the reinvestigation results.
Notice of the hearing was sent to Atty. Jesus Borromeo. However, he clarified that he was not representing petitioner in these particular cases, causing confusion regarding proper representation.
Due to non-appearance linked to the miscommunication, the scheduled hearing on June 2, 2000, was cancelled.

On June 2, 2000, through counsel Atty. Otilia Dimayuga-Molo, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 13406-13429 on the ground that the PCGG Commissioner lacked authority to file the informations.
On June 6, 2000, petitioner received a notice from Prosecutor Taguba regarding a clarificatory hearing scheduled for June 9, 2000.
On June 8, 2000, the Sandiganbayan, in open court and without granting the prosecution time to oppose, denied petitioner’s motion to quash and terminated the preliminary investigation.
Subsequent orders set petitioner’s arraignment first on June 26, 2000, which was then reset to July 28, 2000.
Petitioner received written orders denying both his motion to quash and his subsequent oral motion for reconsideration.

Annulment of the assailed orders dated June 8, 2000.
Prohibition of the Sandiganbayan from implementing those orders, including enforcing the set arraignment on July 28, 2000.
Issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.

The alleged lack of jurisdiction and/or grave abuse of discretion when the court denied his motion to quash.
The failure to comply with the Supreme Court directive requiring a proper preliminary investigation.
The prejudicial nature of the court’s actions, which allegedly denied him due process by prejudging the case in open court.

The lack of a proper preliminary investigation does not affect the court’s jurisdiction over the information, as established in prior cases and doctrines (e.g., People vs. Monteverde; Luciano v. Mariano; Ilagan v. Enrile; Sanciangco, Jr. vs. People; and Go v. Court of Appeals).
Objections regarding the non-filing of preliminary investigations should have been raised before entry of the plea.
The decisions of the court prior to the proper preliminary investigation remain valid and effective.

They further argued that any procedural irregularities were remedied by the suspension of proceedings pending a proper investigation.

The case stressed that criminal due process demands full compliance with procedural steps from preliminary investigation to trial.
It underscored that any defect in the information—particularly one arising from the lack of authority of the filing officer—renders the entire proceeding null and void.

Whether the filing of the informations by the PCGG Commissioner, who lacked the requisite authority, rendered the informations fundamentally invalid.

Does the defect in the authority of the filing officer automatically nullify the proceedings, notwithstanding the subsequent suspension and directions for a proper preliminary investigation?

Denying petitioner’s motion to quash the informations without affording the prosecution an opportunity to respond.
Terminating the preliminary investigation abruptly, thereby depriving petitioner of his right to due process.
Setting and then resetting the arraignment dates without resolving the underlying defect in the filing process.

Whether petitioner’s right to a proper preliminary investigation and, by extension, to due process was violated by the Sandiganbayan’s procedural and administrative handling of the case.

Should the court have remanded the case for a proper preliminary investigation before proceeding with trial preparations?

Whether the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and the annulment of the June 8, 2000 orders are warranted given the factual and procedural irregularities present in the case.