Case Summary (G.R. No. 188711)
Factual Background
• July 28, 1993: Presidential Anti-Crime Commission requests charges against Sanchez.
• August 9, 1993: DOJ Panel conducts preliminary investigation; Sanchez, represented by Atty. Marciano Brion Jr., waives counter-affidavit.
• August 12–13, 1993: PNP “invitation” issued; Sanchez brought to Camp Vicente Lim, positively identified by state witnesses; placed under “arrest status.”
• August 13, 1993: Inquest before DOJ prosecutors; Atty. Salvador Panelo represents Sanchez; warrant for violation of R.A. No. 6713 issued by RTC Manila, Branch 7.
• August 16, 1993: Seven informations filed in RTC Calamba charging rape and homicide of Sarmenta.
• August 26, 1993: Warrant of arrest issued in Calamba; venue transferred to Pasig by the Supreme Court.
• September 10, 1993: Informations amended to include Gomez’s killing; Sanchez moves to quash.
• September 13, 1993: Motion to quash denied; petition for certiorari and prohibition filed.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution – presumption of innocence; Bill of Rights
• Rule 112, Sec. 3(d), Rules of Court – conduct of preliminary investigation; waiver of counter-affidavit
• Rule 113, Rules of Court – definition and requisites of arrest
• R.A. No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act)
• R.A. No. 7438 – custodial investigation safeguards
• Rule 110, Sec. 13, Rules of Court – prohibiting duplicity of offense
• P.D. No. 1606, as amended – jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
Issues Presented
- Whether Sanchez was denied the right to present evidence in the preliminary investigation.
- Whether only the Ombudsman may investigate public officers like the petitioner.
- Whether Sanchez’s warrantless arrest rendered subsequent proceedings void.
- Whether charging seven homicides for two deaths constitutes duplicity.
- Whether omission of certain individuals in the information makes the prosecution discriminatory.
- Whether the case belongs exclusively to the Sandiganbayan.
Preliminary Investigation and Waiver
Sanchez contends he was denied the opportunity to submit counter-affidavits at the August 9 and 13 hearings. The records establish:
- On both dates, counsel expressly waived counter-affidavits after reviewing state witnesses’ statements.
- The panel advised the petitioner he could still file counter-affidavits by August 27, 1993; none was filed.
- Rule 112, Sec. 3(d) permits an accused to waive submission of counter-affidavits.
- Even flawed or absent preliminary investigations do not invalidate informations or deprive the trial court of jurisdiction; the trial judge may order reinvestigation but declined to do so.
Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and Prosecutors
Sanchez argues that R.A. No. 6770 vests exclusive investigative power in the Ombudsman. The Court clarifies:
- The Ombudsman’s authority under Sec. 15(1), R.A. 6770, is concurrent, not exclusive.
- Other bodies (e.g., DOJ Panel, Presidential Anti-Crime Commission) may investigate and file information.
- Prior judicial decisions confirm non-involvement of the Ombudsman does not vitiate the validity of the information.
Lawfulness of Arrest
Sanchez’s arrest at Camp Vicente Lim was effected without a warrant, raising questions under Rule 113:
- “Invitation” by high-ranking PNP officers to a military camp in a post-martial-law context effectively amounted to compulsory custody.
- R.A. 7438 safeguards apply to custodial investigations even when formal arrest is not declared.
- While the initial detention was without a valid warrant under Rule 113, Sec. 5, jurisdiction was later acquired by:
• Issuance of a valid warrant on August 26, 1993, for the rape-slay cases by the RTC Calamba, and
• Submission by Sanchez to the court’s jurisdiction, since he raised other grounds in his motion to quash and thereby waived any objection to personal jurisdiction. - Supreme Court precedents establish that subsequent lawful process cures any initial illegality of detention.
Duplicity and Sufficiency of Informations
Sanchez asserts absurdity in charging seven homicides for two victims. The Court explains:
- Rape with homicide is a special complex crime; each rape followed by slaying constitutes a separate offense.
- Seven accused are each charged with committing a distinct rape culminating in homicide, in succession.
- Rule 110, Sec. 13 permits a single information to charge one offense, except where law prescribes a simple punishment for various offenses, as in R.A. 2632/4111.
- The informations are neither duplicitous nor defective; they allege discrete acts by each defendant in violation of the Revised Penal Code as amended.
Alleged Discrimination in Prosecution
The omission of Teofilo Alqueza and Edgardo Lavadia in the informations does not amount to discriminatory prosecution because:
- Prosecutors have discretion to charge those for whom sufficient evidence exists.
- No clear showing of gr
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 188711)
Facts of the Case
- Mayor Antonio L. Sanchez of Calauan, Laguna, highly publicized as the prime suspect in the rape-slay of Mary Eileen Sarmenta and the killing of Allan Gomez.
- Presidential Anti-Crime Commission requested charges on July 28, 1993.
- Preliminary investigation by DOJ prosecutors on August 9, 1993; Sanchez represented by Atty. Marciano Brion, Jr., waiving counter-affidavit.
- “Invitation” by PNP Commander Rex Piad on August 12, 1993, leading to Sanchez’s appearance at Camp Vicente Lim on August 13, 1993.
- State witnesses Aurelio Centeno and SPO III Vivencio Malabanan positively identified and implicated Sanchez; placed on “arrest status.”
- Inquest and warrant of arrest issued August 13, 1993, by RTC Manila Branch 7 for violations of R.A. No. 6713; Sanchez detained at CIS Detention Center, Camp Crame.
- On August 16, 1993, DOJ filed seven informations for rape and homicide before RTC Calamba, Laguna; warrant of arrest issued August 26, 1993.
- Venue transferred to RTC Pasig, Branch 70, by Supreme Court resolution to avoid local bias; informations amended September 10, 1993 to include killing of Allan Gomez.
Procedural History
- September 10, 1993: Sanchez filed motion to quash the seven informations.
- September 13, 1993: RTC Pasig denied the motion to quash after oral arguments.
- October 1993: Petition for certiorari and prohibition filed with Supreme Court, praying also for TRO/writ of injunction.
- Respondents (trial judge, DOJ Secretary, prosecutors) filed Comment; Sanchez’s Reply was filed late but nonetheless considered.
- Supreme Court en banc assigned to resolve procedural and jurisdictional questions.
Issues Presented
- Whether Sanchez was denied due process in the preliminary investigation.
- Whether only the Office of the Ombudsman had competence to investigate and whether DOJ proceedings were void.
- Legality of the warrantless arrest and its effect on court jurisdiction.
- Alleged multiplicity of charges: seven homicides for two victims.
- Claim of discriminatory prosecution for omitting Teofilo Alqueza and Edgardo Lavadia.
- Alleged exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over an incumbent public officer.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Denial of right to present evidence at preliminary investigation.
- DOJ lacked jurisdiction over public officer; only Ombudsman could investigate and