Case Digest: Rodis vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 71404-09, October 26, 1988

                          Motion to Quash | Criminal Procedure


Facts:

The petitioner, Hermilo v. Rodis, Sr., former President of the Philippine Underwriters Finance Corporation (PHILFINANCE), was charged with five counts of violation of Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act) before the Sandiganbayan.

On May 31, 1985, the petitioner filed a motion to quash the charges against him based on the lack of preliminary investigation. He also requested a reinvestigation by the Tanodbayan.

The prosecution opposed the motion, stating that lack of preliminary investigation is not a valid ground for quashing the charges and advised the petitioner to file a petition for reinvestigation with the Tanodbayan.

While the petitioner's petition for reinvestigation was pending, the Sandiganbayan denied his motion to quash on July 15, 1985, stating that lack of preliminary investigation is not a proper ground for quashing the charges.

The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that lack of preliminary investigation affects the regularity of the proceedings and that the Sandiganbayan can order the quashal of the charges.

The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order on August 1, 1985, halting the arraignment, pre-trial, and trial of the cases.


Issue:

WoN lack of preliminary investigation is a valid ground for quashing the charges.

Lack of preliminary investigation affects the regularity of the proceedings leading to the filing of the charges; Previous court cases have ordered the quashing of charges due to lack of preliminary investigation; Although not enumerated as a ground for a motion to quash, the Sandiganbayan has the power to order the quashal of charges to ensure conformity with law and justice. The petitioner claims that he will demonstrate his lack of participation in the transactions, except for one where he approved reimbursement for representation expenses incurred by a subordinate, following approval by a superior.


Held: DENIED.



Respondent People of the Philippines on the other hand avers that as petitioner does not dispute that a preliminary investigation was indeed conducted, what he is really protesting against is the lost opportunity to participate therein due to the alleged failure of the Tanodbayan to serve a subpoena upon him. It is, however, contended that this alleged failure did not affect the regularity of the preliminary investigation as the Tanodbayan is justified under Section 3, Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure in proceeding with the preliminary investigation after an attempt to subpoena petitioner at the latter's known address proved unavailing, and in basing its resolution on the evidence presented by the complainant.

The analysis of respondent People, thru the Solicitor General, as to the real nature of the controversy at bar is correct. It is not disputed that a preliminary investigation was conducted by the Tanodbayan prior to the filing of the informations. Petitioner, however, was not able to participate therein as the subpoena addressed to him at (PHILFINANCE) his last known address, was returned "unserved," petitioner having already severed his employment with said company at the time of service. As petitioner reportedly left (PHILFINANCE) under most unfriendly circumstances, PHILFINANCE did not give the process server his residence address on record with it.

Under Section 3, sub-section (d) of Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, "if the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed, does not submit counter-affidavits within the ten (10) day period, the investigating officer shall base his resolution on the evidence presented by the complainant." It is to be noted that this provision does not require as a condition sine qua non to the validity of the proceedings the presence of the accused for as long as efforts to reach him were made, and an opportunity to controvert the evidence of the complainant is accorded him. The obvious purpose of the rule is to block attempts of unscrupulous respondents to thwart the prosecution of offenses by hiding themselves or by employing dilatory tactics.

Considering that petitioner has voluntarily appeared before the respondent Sandiganbayan in connection with the criminal cases in question and has appeared in other preliminary investigations of other PHILFINANCE charges filed in various fiscals' offices and the Ministry (now Department) of Justice, it is apparent that the non-service of the subpoena upon him was not of his own doing or liking. To apply the full force and effect of section 3, sub-section (d) of Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure would, to our mind, greatly prejudice him.

It is worthwhile repeating that the avowed purposes of a preliminary investigation are "to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, and to protect him from an open and public accusation of crime, from the trouble, expense and anxiety of' a public trial, and also to protect the state from useless and expensive trials 9 and while the "absence of preliminary investigations does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case (n)or do they impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective, but, if there were no preliminary investigations and the defendants, before entering their plea, invite the attention of the court to their absence, the court, instead of dismissing the information, should conduct such investigation, order the fiscal to conduct it or remand the case to the inferior court so that the preliminary investigation may be conducted. 10 In this case, the Tanodbayan, has the duty to conduct the said investigation. 11

Thus, although the Sandiganbayan was correct in ruling that the absence of a preliminary investigation is not a ground for quashing an information, it should have held the proceedings in the criminal cases in abeyance pending resolution by the Tanodbayan of petitioner's petition for reinvestigation, as alternatively prayed for by him in his motion to quash.

During the pendency of the case at bar, petitioner manifested to the Court that in a Joint Order dated September 26, 1985, Tanodbayan Special Prosecutors Roger C. Berbano Sr. and Eleuterio F. Guerrero had recommended that the separate petitions for reinvestigation filed by petitioner and his co-accused be given due course by the Tanodbayan and that said special prosecutors be given clearance and authority to conduct such reinvestigation. Although it appears that these recommendations were approved by then Tanodbayan Bernardo P. Fernandez on October 14, 1985 12 no further report on this matter has reached the Court. As we cannot assume that the reinvestigation was indeed conducted as would render the instant petition moot and academic, and considering the importance of the issue involved, we deemed it proper to decide the petition on the merits.

WHEREFORE, the assailed resolution of the respondent Sandiganbayan dated July 15, 1985 in Criminal Cases Nos. 10389, 10390, 10391, 10393 and 10394 is hereby affirmed, but respondent Sandiganbayan is ordered to hold in abeyance the proceedings therein with respect to petitioner, subject to the outcome of the reinvestigation of the Tanodbayan of the aforesaid cases. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court on August 1, 1985 is deemed superseded by this directive.


Popular posts from this blog

Election Laws: Requirements Before Election

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE ELECTION A. Registration Registration of Voters The right of a citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon certain procedural requirements he must undergo, among others, the process of registration. Registration regulates the exercise of the right of suffrage .  It is not a qualification for such right.  R.A. No. 8189, the Voter's Registration Act of 1996 (approved June 11, 1996) : Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is the policy of the State to systematize the present method of registration in order to establish a clean, complete, permanent and updated list of voters. Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act: Registration refers to the act of accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for registration by a qualified voter before the election officer of the city or municipality wherein he resides and including the same in the book of registered voters upon approval by the Election Registration Board; Registration Record refers to an ...
Read more

Case Digest: Cadajas vs. People, GR No. 247348, November 16, 2021

Evidence | Rule 130 Lopez, J, J. Petitioner: Christian Cadajas y Cabias Respondent: People of the Philippines  Recit Ver: The right to privacy under the 1987 Philippine Constitution protects individuals against government intrusions, not actions by private individuals. Since the evidence was obtained by AAA's mother, a private individual, it did not violate Cadajas' constitutional rights . Cadajas had no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the messages, as he voluntarily gave his password to AAA. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Cadajas induced AAA to send him nude photos, constituting child pornography under the relevant laws. The sweetheart defense was not applicable because the violation was a malum prohibitum offense, and the age disparity placed Cadajas in a position of power over AAA. The penalties prescribed by law for such offenses are within the legislative prerogative and justified by the potential for widespread harm through digital mean...
Read more

Case Digest: Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, GR. No. 122156, February 3, 1997

Political Law Review | Self-executing Provisions, Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy The GSIS decided to privatize the Manila Hotel by selling 51% of its shares to a qualified bidder through public bidding. In the bidding, the Manila Prince Hotel Corporation (MPHC) offered ₱41.58 per share, which was ₱0.58 higher than the ₱41.00 per share offered by a Malaysian firm, Renong Berhad. Despite MPHC being a Filipino-owned corporation and having a higher bid, the GSIS awarded the sale to the Malaysian firm, citing that MPHC failed to match the terms of payment required. MPHC filed a petition, invoking Section 10, second paragraph, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, which states: “ In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos .” MPHC argued that the provision is self-executing and GSIS was bound to apply it without need for an enabling law. Whether Section 10, Article XII of the 19...
Read more