Case Summary (G.R. No. 172035)
Facts and Procedural History
- Ombudsman-Mindanao conducted preliminary investigation on allegations that petitioner granted unwarranted benefits in awarding architectural and engineering consultancy without newspaper publication.
- July 29, 1999 – Probable cause found for violation of RA 3019, Sec. 3(e) and falsification of public document.
- March 1, 2000 – Informations filed; petitioner sought reinvestigation and multiple extensions for his counter-affidavit, ultimately deemed to have waived evidentiary submissions.
- November 3, 2004 – Arraignment; petitioner pleads not guilty.
- April 28, 2005 – OSP files motion for preventive suspension pendente lite under RA 3019, Sec. 13.
- January 25, 2006 – Sandiganbayan grants 90-day suspension; petitioner’s request for pre-suspension hearing and motion for reconsideration are denied.
Petitioner's Arguments
• Information is defective for failing to attribute “evident bad faith and manifest partiality” to petitioner, an essential element of Sec. 3(e).
• Sandiganbayan violated due process by ordering suspension without conducting an actual pre-suspension hearing or issuing a show-cause order.
Office of the Special Prosecutor’s Position
• The information clearly alleges all essential elements of Sec. 3(e): designation of offense, specific acts, manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and unwarranted benefits.
• Petitioner was afforded preliminary investigation and multiple opportunities to challenge the information, including motions for reinvestigation and to quash.
• Due process requirement for pre-suspension hearing was satisfied through pleadings and memoranda, consistent with Juan v. People and related cases.
Issues Presented
- Is the information charging violation of Sek. 3(e), RA 3019, valid?
- If valid, does the absence of an actual pre-suspension hearing invalidate the suspension order?
Validity of the Information
Under Rule 110, Secs. 6 and 9, an information must:
• State the offense designation.
• Describe the acts constituting the offense in ordinary, concise language.
The Court holds:
• The information intelligibly alleges petitioner’s official capacity, his exclusion of other consultants, failure to publish the invitation, and the resulting unwarranted benefits.
• “Evident bad faith and manifest partiality” reasonably qualify petitioner’s conduct; no fatal ambiguity exists.
• Any uncertainty could have been addressed by a bill of particulars, not by quashal.
Validity of the Suspension Order
Section 13, RA 3019, mandates preventive suspension of any public officer under a valid information, subject to a hearing on the information’s validity. In Luciano v. Mariano, the Supreme Court clarified:
• A separate show-cause order is unnecessary when the prosecution’s motion for suspension itself invokes the hearing requirement.
• The hearing’s purpose is to afford the accused a fair opportunity
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 172035)
Antecedent Facts
- On May 29, 1996, Vice Mayor Mercelita M. Lucido and other Koronadal City officials filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman–Mindanao charging Fernando Q. Miguel (then Municipal Mayor) with graft under R.A. No. 3019 in connection with consultancy services for the Koronadal City public market project.
- The Ombudsman directed Miguel to submit a counter-affidavit on June 27, 1996; he filed it on October 23, 1996 after an extension.
- On July 29, 1999, the Ombudsman found probable cause for graft under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and for falsification of public document under Art. 171(4) of the RPC.
- Corresponding informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan on March 1, 2000 (Crim. Case No. 25819 for graft; No. 25820 for falsification).
Reinvestigation and Preliminary Proceedings
- Two co-accused moved for reinvestigation; on August 21, 2000, Miguel orally joined and was granted ten days by the Sandiganbayan to file a counter-affidavit with the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP).
- Miguel repeatedly requested and obtained extensions (30 days on Aug. 30 and Sept. 28; 20 days on Oct. 29, 2000) but ultimately failed to file his counter-affidavit.
- On April 25, 2001, Prosecutor Ruiz declared that Miguel waived his right to submit countervailing evidence; the Ombudsman approved this on July 31, 2001.
- The OSP moved for Miguel’s arraignment and trial on August 7, 2001.
Motion to Quash and Arraignment
- After further extensions, Miguel filed on August 6, 2002 a Motion to Quash or for Reinvestigation; the Sandiganbayan denied it on February 18, 2003 due to the pending reinvestigation despite its termination.
- Miguel did not appeal that denial.
- He was arraigned on November 3, 2004, and pleaded not guilty to both graft and falsification charges.
Suspension Order and Reconsideration
- On April 28, 2005, the OSP filed a motion to suspend the petitioner pendente lite under Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019.
- Mig