G.R. No. 105248 - Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan

Background and Public Service of the Petitioner
Benjamin (Kokoy) Romualdez is a veteran government official who rendered over two decades of service, notably starting as a technical consultant in the Department of Foreign Affairs.
At the time the proceedings were initiated, he simultaneously held two prominent positions: Philippine Ambassador to the United States and Governor of Leyte.

Alleged Omission and Filing of Informations
Romualdez was accused of failing to comply with Section 7 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which mandates the annual filing of a statement of assets and liabilities.
The allegation extended to a period of twenty-four (24) years—from 1962 to 1985—accusing him of wilfully and unlawfully neglecting his statutory duty.
Based on a preliminary investigation that revealed prima facie evidence of such omissions, the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) filed twenty-four identically worded informations (varying only in the corresponding year and nature of public office held) against him.

Court Proceedings and Petitioner’s Motions
The Sandiganbayan, after docketing the criminal cases (Nos. 13406 to 13429), issued arrest warrants; however, these could not be executed as Romualdez was out of the country at that time.
On October 21, 1991, Romualdez filed a “Motion to Recall Warrants of Arrest,” arguing that there was no valid preliminary investigation to justify the indictments.
Subsequently, he filed an “Urgent Ex-Parte Motion” to hold in abeyance the implementation of the arrest warrants and to post a cash deposit equivalent to the recommended bail bonds, thereby assuring his voluntary surrender upon his return.
In these motions, he was careful to assert that his filing of the cash bond did not waive or prejudice his contention that the underlying informations were null and void due to the absence of a properly conducted preliminary investigation.

Sandiganbayan’s Resolutions and Subsequent Developments
On November 4, 1991, the Sandiganbayan promulgated a resolution granting the motion under strict conditions:

The posted cash deposit would serve as a provisional bond for his temporary liberty upon personal appearance.
Specific conditions were set regarding the timeframe for depositing cash, returning to the Philippines, and reporting to the court.

Despite filing further motions for partial reconsideration and requesting modification of the return period on November 15, 1991, and December 16, 1991, the petitioner faced repeated extensions and eventually a fixed period for his return.
The PCGG countered with its own submissions, contending that its preliminary investigation was within its jurisdiction and that the actions of the Sandiganbayan, including the confiscation of the cash bond, were properly executed.
On April 24, 1992, the Sandiganbayan denied Romualdez’s motions to recall the warrants or modify the bail conditions, ordering the forfeiture of his cash bond (totaling P360,000.00 across the 24 cases).

The PCGG exceeded its jurisdiction by investigating violations that did not pertain to the acquisition of ill-gotten wealth, citing authorities such as Cojuangco and Cruz.
The mere failure to file annual statements did not fall into the ambit of “ill-gotten wealth” and should instead be within the purview of the Ombudsman and other authorized agencies.
His filing of motions and posting of the cash bond did not amount to a waiver of his right to a thorough preliminary investigation.

Absence of physical submission to the court’s jurisdiction rendered his claims moot.
The preliminary investigation and subsequent legal processes undertaken by the PCGG and the Sandiganbayan were proper and in accordance with the rules, given that the non-filing of statements could also be a means to conceal assets.

Nature of the Petition Before the Supreme Court
Romualdez filed his petition for review on certiorari under Section 1 of Rule 45, which, as he admitted, is traditionally reserved for judgments or final orders, not for interlocutory resolutions.
Thus, apart from addressing the merits of the issues raised, the Court was compelled to first consider the procedural appropriateness of the petition itself.

Jurisdiction and Validity of the Preliminary Investigation
Whether the PCGG had the authority to conduct a preliminary investigation on the charge of non-filing of asset and liability statements for 24 years.
Whether such investigation was appropriate given that the alleged omission did not pertain to the acquisition of ill-gotten wealth.

Validity of the Sandiganbayan’s Judicial Actions
Whether the issuance of arrest warrants, the imposition of specific bail conditions, and the subsequent confiscation of the cash bond were legally proper in the absence of a valid preliminary investigation.
Whether these actions constitute an abuse of discretion or are within the sound exercise of judicial power.

Waiver of the Right to a Preliminary Investigation
Whether the petitioner’s posting of a cash deposit and filing of related motions constituted an implicit waiver of his right to secure a proper preliminary investigation.

Appropriateness of the Mode of Appeal
Whether filing the petition under Section 1 of Rule 45 (typically applicable to final judgments) was procedurally correct, given that the orders in question were interlocutory and should have been reviewed under Rule 65.