Case Summary (G.R. No. 165510-33)
Procedural History
On February 22, 1989, a total of 24 informations were initiated against Romualdez, citing his failure to submit required SALs during his time in public service. Following the issuance of an arrest warrant on February 28, 1989, Romualdez remained outside the country until his voluntary return in April 2000, leading to legal motions regarding the arrest warrants and the ongoing investigations. Notably, in 1995, the Supreme Court invalidated the preliminary investigation conducted by the PCGG, affirming the necessity of a proper preliminary investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman.
Ombudsman's Investigation and Findings
After Being instructed by the Supreme Court in 1995 to conduct a proper preliminary investigation, the Sandiganbayan directed Romualdez to submit a counter-affidavit. However, he failed to comply, leading the Office of the Special Prosecutor to proceed based solely on the evidence presented by the complainant, the PCGG. On July 12, 2004, the OSP determined probable cause that Romualdez violated Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019 and recommended the filing of new informations.
Legal Arguments and Issues
Romualdez petitioned for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, asserting that the Ombudsman acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion by failing to dismiss preliminary investigations concerning previously dismissed cases, arguing both that the offenses had prescribed and that the Ombudsman lacked authority to proceed based on previously discarded informations. Respondents contended that the dismissal did not preclude an investigation from occurring as the Ombudsman possesses the authority to conduct investigations autonomously.
Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court found that the Ombudsman did not act with grave abuse of discretion in conducting the preliminary investigation. The ruling clarified that a special civil action for certiorari is appropriate when a tribunal acts outside its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The Court reiterated that the mere dismissal of earlier cases does not affect the Ombudsman's authority to investigate and subsequently file new charges. Furthermore, the ruling established that the statute of limit
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 165510-33)
Case Overview
- This case involves a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, challenging the resolutions of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP)/Ombudsman dated July 12, 2004, and September 6, 2004.
- The resolutions recommended the filing of informations against petitioner Benjamin "Kokoy" T. Romualdez for violations of Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) due to his failure to file Statements of Assets and Liabilities (SAL) from 1962 to 1985.
Factual Background
- On February 22, 1989, 24 informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 13406-13429) were filed against Romualdez for non-filing of SAL.
- A warrant for his arrest was issued on February 28, 1989, but was not served due to his exile.
- Romualdez filed a Motion to Recall Warrants of Arrest on October 21, 1991, citing lack of jurisdiction by the PCGG.
- The Sandiganbayan deferred the enforcement of the arrest warrant under specified conditions.
- His motion to recall was denied on January 24, 1992, and the denial was upheld upon reconsideration.
- Romualdez petitioned the Supreme Court, which invalidated the PCGG's preliminary investigation but allowed the Sandiganbayan to continue with its jurisdiction.
Supreme Court Ruling
- On May 16, 1995, the Supreme Court declared the preliminary investigation by the PCGG invalid due to lack of jurisdiction but affirmed the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction over the case.
- The Court directed the Ombudsman to conduct a proper preliminary investigation and suspended proceedings until completion.
Subsequent Proceedings
- Following the Supreme Court's directive, the Sandiganbayan ordered Romualdez to submit a counter-affidavit, whi