Title
Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 134307
Decision Date
Dec 21, 1998
Cojuangco challenged arrest warrant validity, jurisdiction, and travel ban in graft case; SC ruled warrant void but upheld jurisdiction, lifted travel ban.

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-18-2537)

Facts and Preliminary Investigation

This Court’s October 2, 1990 decision voided all PCGG preliminary investigation proceedings and directed transfer of records to the Office of the Ombudsman. On June 2, 1992, the Ombudsman’s panel of investigators recommended filing an information against petitioner under RA 3019, Section 3(e). Subsequent memoranda—November 18, 1992 and January 16, 1995—addressed prejudicial questions and affirmed the recommendation.

Filing of Information and Issuance of Arrest Warrant

Criminal Case No. 22018 was filed in Sandiganbayan on February 16, 1995 and allotted to the First Division. The following day, based solely on the 1992 panel resolution and the January 1995 Special Prosecutor memorandum, the court issued a warrant of arrest against petitioner.

Petitioner’s Procedural Challenges and Sandiganbayan’s Orders

Petitioner immediately opposed the arrest warrant, moved for leave to file reconsideration of Ombudsman resolutions, and posted bail on February 22, 1995 “without prejudice” to his Opposition. The Sandiganbayan barred him from leaving the country except with prior court approval (February 20, 1995) and granted extensions to file motions for reconsideration. His motion to recall the warrant was denied (April 3, 1995), leading to a conditional arraignment on May 25, 1995, to accommodate his travel requests.

Ombudsman’s Recommendation to Dismiss and Subsequent Motions

On October 22, 1995, the Special Prosecutor found no probable cause and recommended dismissal; the Ombudsman approved that recommendation on November 15, 1996. Petitioner filed an urgent motion to dismiss (December 1996). The PCGG sought reconsideration; petitioner challenged its timeliness. The Sandiganbayan ordered both prosecution and petitioner to justify positions, resulting in extensive filings through 1997.

Constitutional Requirement for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause

Under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, “no … warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath … of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.” In Ho v. People (280 SCRA 365, 1997), the Court held that a judge cannot rely solely on the prosecutor’s report but must have supporting affidavits or documents to independently verify probable cause.

Nullity of the Warrant of Arrest

The Sandiganbayan’s issuance of the arrest warrant based only on the Ombudsman’s June 1992 resolution and the Special Prosecutor’s January 1995 memorandum, without additional supporting evidence, violated the constitutional mandate of personal judicial determination of probable cause. Consequently, the warrant dated February 17, 1995 is null and void.

Jurisdiction Acquired by Posting Bail and General Appearances

Despite the null arrest warrant, petitioner’s posting of bail and general appearances—filing motions for affirmative relief such as extensions to travel—constituted a waiver of any objection to jurisdiction, effectively submitting his person to the Sandiganbayan’s authority. Under settled jurisprudence, once bail is posted, the court’s jurisdiction over defendant is deemed acquired and prior infirmities are cured.

Right to Speedy Disposition and Procedural Delays

Petitioner asserts violation of his rights to due process, speedy trial, and speedy disposition, noting over three years since filing of the information and over eighteen months since the Ombudsman’s no-cause recommendation. While the Court recognizes some delay due to Sandiganbayan reorganization, pet

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.

    About Privacy Terms