ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 143618-41. July 17, 2000]

BENJAMIN "Kokoy" ROMUALDEZ vs. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 17 2000.

G.R. No. 143618-41 (Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan [First Division] and The People pf the Philippines, represented by Special Prosecution Officer II Evelyn Tagoba Lucero.)

Petitioner is charged before the Sandiganbayan with 24 counts of violation of Section 7 of R.A. 3019, i.e., failure to file statements of his assets and liabilities covering the years 1962-1985, in cases docketed as Criminal Cases No. 13406 to 13428. The criminal informations were filed by the PCGG, after preliminary investigation conducted by its Commissioner Augusto E. Villarin. In a previous petition, this Court declared invalid the preliminary investigation for lack of jurisdiction of the PCGG over the offenses, ruling that the same do not relate to alleged ill-gotten wealth amassed by petitioner (Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan [First Division], 244 SCRA 152, at 163 [1995]). Despite said ruling, this Court found that the invalidity or absence of a preliminary investigation did not affect the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan; hence, it denied the petition but directed the Sandiganbayan to suspend the proceedings in the criminal cases and to order the Office of the Ombudsman to conduct a proper preliminary investigation (supra., at 166).

Pursuant to the aforesaid decision, the Sandiganbayan, by resolution dated November 13, 1995, ordered petitioner to submit his counter-affidavit and controverting evidence within fifteen days from receipt thereof, and directed the Office of the Special Prosecutor to submit its report of the re-investigation within sixty days, also from receipt thereof. However, petitioner had by then left the country, for which reason no preliminary investigation or re-investigation was held.

Petitioner returned to the country on April 27, 2000, and thereafter submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by filing the required cash bonds. Thus, the Sandiganbayan, on May 8, 2000, required Special Prosecutor Evelyn T. Lucero to submit the result of any re-investigation she may have conducted pursuant to its resolution of November 13, 1995. Prosecutor Lucero scheduled hearings for clarificatory questioning on June 2, 5 and 9, 2000. Petitioner failed to appear on June 2 and 5, 2000, and alleged that he only received notice of the hearing scheduled on June 9, 2000. In the meantime, petitioner filed with the Sandiganbayan a Motion to Quash on the ground that the PCGG Commissioner lacked authority to file the 24 criminal informations against him.

At the hearing of the Motion to Quash on June 8, 2000, the Sandiganbayan denied the same. Likewise, said court ordered that the preliminary investigation be terminated, notwithstanding that a hearing for clarificatory questioning was still to be conducted the following day, June 9, 2000. Petitioner's counsel orally moved for reconsideration, but this was denied. The Sandiganbayan set petitioner's arraignment on June 26, 2000. The arraignment was later reset to July 28, 2000 after petitioner through counsel expressed his intention to bring a petition for certiorari to this Court.

Hence, the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Petitioner assails the orders of the Sandiganbayan denying his Motion to Quash and his oral motion for reconsideration, ordering the termination of the preliminary investigation, and setting his arraignment on July 28, 2000. In support of his application for injunctive relief, petitioner alleges that the criminal cases against him are based on void informations; thus, the Sandiganbayan must be enjoined from arraigning him on July 28, 2000 and from proceeding with the trial of the cases.

After deliberating on the petition, this Court, without necessarily giving due course thereto, Resolved to require respondents to COMMENT thereon (not to file a motion to dismiss) within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice hereof. Pending resolution of this petition, and in order not to render the same moot and academic, the Court further Resolved to DIRECT the parties to maintain the STATUS QUO ANTE prevailing at the time of the filing of the petition.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE