Case Summary (G.R. No. 172035)
Petitioner’s Charges and Preliminary Proceedings
On May 29, 1996 a complaint was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman—Mindanao charging the petitioner and others with violations of Republic Act No. 3019 and, separately, the petitioner alone with falsification of public document. The Ombudsman ordered a counter-affidavit (June 27, 1996); the petitioner filed one on October 23, 1996. On July 29, 1999 the Ombudsman found probable cause for violation of RA 3019 and for falsification; the corresponding informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan on March 1, 2000.
Substance of the RA 3019 Information
The information alleged that on or about January 10, 1995 the petitioner, as municipal mayor, took advantage of his official position and, acting with “evident bad faith and manifest partiality,” gave unwarranted benefits and advantages by inviting certain private individuals to participate in the prequalification of consultants without publication in a newspaper of general circulation, thereby excluding other consultants. The information thus pleaded the essential acts and the qualifying phrase “acting with evident bad faith and manifest partiality.”
Reinvestigation, Waiver and Motions to Quash
Upon motions by co-accused and the petitioner, the Sandiganbayan ordered reinvestigation by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP). The petitioner obtained and sought multiple extensions but ultimately failed to file a counter-affidavit; Prosecutor Ruiz declared waiver of his right to submit countervailing evidence (April 25, 2001), and the Ombudsman approved that declaration (July 31, 2001). The prosecutor later moved for arraignment and trial. The petitioner filed a Motion to Quash (August 6, 2002), which the Sandiganbayan denied (February 18, 2003), and he was arraigned and pleaded not guilty (November 3, 2004).
Motion to Suspend and Suspension Order
The OSP filed a Motion to Suspend pendente lite (April 28, 2005). The petitioner filed an opposition (June 27, 2005), arguing that the information was fatally defective for not alleging that the unwarranted benefits were given through “manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence,” and contending lack of a pre-suspension hearing. The Sandiganbayan granted the OSP motion and suspended the petitioner for ninety (90) days (January 25, 2006). The petitioner moved for reconsideration and demanded a pre-suspension hearing (February 2, 2006); the Sandiganbayan denied reconsideration (March 27, 2006). The petitioner then filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition before the Supreme Court.
Petitioner’s Contentions Before the Supreme Court
The petitioner asserted (a) the information was fatally defective because the qualifying phrase “evident bad faith and manifest partiality” applied to his co-accused, not to him, thereby failing to allege an essential element of the RA 3019 offense; and (b) the suspension order was invalid because no show-cause order or actual pre-suspension hearing was conducted as required by Luciano v. Mariano.
OSP’s Position Before the Supreme Court
The OSP maintained that the information sufficiently pleaded the essential elements of the RA 3019 offense in ordinary and concise language, specifically (i) petitioner’s official capacity, (ii) that he acted with manifest partiality and evident bad faith by inviting only certain private individuals without publication, and (iii) that such acts conferred unwarranted benefits. The OSP further argued that the purpose of a pre-suspension hearing—to determine the validity of the information—was satisfied by the procedural history and the parties’ pleadings, citing jurisprudence that pleadings may fulfill the due process requirement.
Legal Standards on Sufficiency of Information
The Court reiterated the Rules of Court requirements (Rule 110, Secs. 6 and 9) that an information must designate the offense and state the acts or omissions constituting it in ordinary and concise language sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know the offense and prepare a defense. The test is whether the material facts alleged establish the essential elements of the charged offense with reasonable particularity.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling on the Information
The Supreme Court found no fatal defect in the information. A plain reading shows that the phrase “acting with evident bad faith and manifest partiality” qualifies the petitioner’s acts and is not referring solely to co-accused. Any perceived ambiguity about the grammatical position of the qualifying phrase did not render the information unintelligible; the proper remedy would have been a bill of particulars rather than quashal. Jurisprudence cited in the decision supports that an information is sufficient when it describes the crime intelligibly and with particularity to enable preparation of a defense.
Legal Standards on Suspension and Pre-suspension Hearing
Section 13 of RA 3019 mandates suspension of public officers against whom a criminal prosecution under a valid information is pending, and the suspension requires a prior hearing to determine the validity of the information because of the serious consequences of suspending an elective official. Luciano provides that a trial court should generally issue a show-cause order requiring the accused to show cause at a hearing why suspension should not be ordered, but such a show-cause order is unnecessary where the prosecution timely moves
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 172035)
Case Citation, Court, and Date
- Reported at 690 Phil. 147, Second Division, G.R. No. 172035, July 04, 2012.
- Decision authored by Justice Brion; Sandiganbayan resolutions under attack were penned by Associate Justice Godofredo L. Legaspi, concurred in by Associate Justices Efren N. dela Cruz and Norberto Y. Geraldez, Sr.
- Final disposition: Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 dismissed for lack of merit. Concurring opinions by Carpio (Chairperson), Perez, Sereno, and Reyes, JJ.
Parties and Posture
- Petitioner: Fernando Q. Miguel, then City Mayor of Koronadal City, South Cotabato.
- Respondent: The Honorable Sandiganbayan.
- Relief sought by petitioner: Certiorari under Rule 65 to annul Sandiganbayan resolutions (January 25, 2006 and March 27, 2006) that (i) ordered petitioner’s suspension from public office and (ii) denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the suspension order.
Antecedent Facts
- May 29, 1996: Vice Mayor Mercelita M. Lucido and other Koronadal City local officials filed a letter-complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao charging petitioner and others with violation of R.A. No. 3019 in connection with consultancy services for the architectural aspect, engineering design, and construction supervision and management of the proposed Koronadal City public market (the "project").
- June 27, 1996: Ombudsman directed petitioner and others to submit counter-affidavits.
- October 23, 1996: After moving for an extension, petitioner filed his counter-affidavit.
- July 29, 1999: Ombudsman found probable cause against petitioner and some private individuals for violation of R.A. No. 3019 and against petitioner alone for Falsification of Public Document under Article 171, par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code.
- March 1, 2000: Ombudsman filed corresponding informations with the Sandiganbayan. The R.A. No. 3019 case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 25819; the falsification case as Criminal Case No. 25820.
- Content of the R.A. No. 3019 information: alleged that on or about January 10, 1995, petitioner, as former Municipal Mayor, acting in relation to his office, taking advantage of his official position, conspiring with private individuals, and "acting with evident bad faith and manifest partiality," willfully gave unwarranted benefits and advantages to said accused by inviting them to participate in prequalification of consultants without causing publication in a newspaper of general circulation, thereby excluding other consultants.
- March–June 2000: Two co-accused filed motions for reinvestigation; Sandiganbayan ordered OSP to reinvestigate.
- August 21, 2000: Petitioner, through counsel, orally moved for reinvestigation before the Sandiganbayan; the motion was granted and petitioner given ten days to file counter-affidavit with OSP.
- August–October 2000: Petitioner repeatedly requested and was granted extensions to file counter-affidavit (30 days, another 30 days, then 20 days).
- Petitioner failed to file counter-affidavit despite extensions; April 25, 2001: Prosecutor Norberto B. Ruiz declared petitioner waived his right to submit countervailing evidence; July 31, 2001: Ombudsman Aniano Desierto approved the resolution.
- August 7, 2001: Prosecutor Ruiz asked Sandiganbayan for arraignment and trial of petitioner and private individuals.
- August 6, 2002: Petitioner filed Motion to Quash and/or Reinvestigation; February 18, 2003: Sandiganbayan denied petitioner’s motion because of pending OSP reinvestigation, despite OSP’s earlier termination for petitioner’s continuous failure to submit a counter-affidavit.
- Petitioner did not appeal the denial of the Motion to Quash.
- November 3, 2004: Petitioner was arraigned and pleaded not guilty in both criminal cases.
- April 28, 2005: OSP filed a Motion to Suspend petitioner pendente lite.
- June 27, 2005: Petitioner filed a "Vigorous Opposition" alleging an "obvious and fatal defect" in the information—specifically, that the information failed to allege that the giving of unwarranted benefits was done through "manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence."
- January 25, 2006: Sandiganbayan promulgated the resolution granting the Prosecution’s Motion and ordered petitioner's suspension from office for ninety (90) days.
- February 2, 2006: Petitioner moved for reconsideration and demanded a pre-suspension hearing.
- Sandiganbayan denied the motion for reconsideration (March 27, 2006 resolution).
- Petitioner filed the present certiorari petition to challenge validity of suspension order.
The Petitioner's Contentions
- The Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in ordering suspension despite an information that allegedly failed to allege that unwarranted benefits were given through "manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence."
- The petitioner asserts that the phrases "evident bad faith" and "manifest partiality" in fact refer to his co-accused and not to him, rendering the information fatally defective.
- The petitioner complains of lack of a pre-suspension hearing, invoking Luciano, et al. v. Hon. Mariano, to argue that no order or resolution required the petitioner to show cause at a specific date of hearing why he should not be suspended.
- The petitioner contends that the requirement of a pre-suspension hearing can only be satisfied by ordering and conducting an actual hearing to settle alleged defects in the information.
The Office of the Special Prosecutor’s (OSP) Comment and Arguments
- The OSP asserts the information is sufficient, arguing all elements of the offense under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 are specifically pleaded by way of ultimate facts.
- The OSP identifies the pleaded elements as:
- Petitioner was Municipal Mayor of Koronadal at the time of the acts complained of.
- Petitioner acted w