Romualdez v Marcelo

September 23, 2005 | YNARES-SANTIAGO, J . | Freedom from unjust laws, prosecution and sentences | JPS

DOCTRINE: A preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and it is often the only means of discovering the persons
who may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the fiscal to prepare the complaint or information. It is not a trial of
the case on the merits and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether
there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof, and it does not place the person against whom it is taken
in jeopardy.
SUMMARY: Informations were filed against Romualdez for his allaged failure to file SAL’s. He challenged before the SC the
validity of the Preliminary Investigation as it was conducted by the PCGG instead of the Ombudsman. SC ruled in his favor,
ordering Sandiganbayan to dismiss the cases. Ombudsman/OSP then conducted another Preliminary Investigation.
Romualdez filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the same cases have already been dismissed by Sandiganbayan and
that the cases have prescribed. SC: Ombudsman did not err in not granted the motion to dismiss. Such a motion is not
allowed in the preliminary investigation before the Ombudsman, pursuant to its own Rules of Procedure. Similarly, the
allegation of prescription is a matter of defense better settled in a full-blown trial.

FACTS:
● Informations docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 13406-13429 were filed against petitioner Benjamin “Kokoy”
Romualdez before the Sandiganbayan for his alleged failure to file the SAL from 1962 to 1985.
● A warrant of arrest was issued but this was not served because of petitioner's exile from the country. He then filed
through counsel a Motion to Recall Warrants of Arrest, alleging that the preliminary investigation conducted by the
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) was invalid for lack of jurisdiction.
● Romualdez went to SC. SC declared invalid the preliminary investigation conducted by the PCGG for lack of
jurisdiction. Sandiganbayan was ordered to suspend the proceedings pending the holding of a proper preliminary
investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman.
● Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash. Sandiganbayan denied petitioner's motion to quash and the reconsideration
thereof and also terminated the preliminary investigation.
● Romualdez again went to SC assailing the orders of the Sandiganbayan (1) denying his motion to quash and his oral
motion for reconsideration; (2) ordering the termination of the preliminary investigation; and (3) setting his
arraignment
● SC granted his petition holding that it is the prosecutor which is the Ombudsman, and not the PCGG, which must
subscribe and file the informations because the crimes ascribed to petitioner do not relate to alleged ill-gotten wealth,
and were therefore, beyond the ambit of the PCGG's jurisdiction. The informations were filed by PCGG, an
unauthorized party and could not even be cured by conducting another preliminary investigation. Since the
informations were invalid, they cannot serve as basis for criminal proceedings.
● Pursuant to the foregoing Decision, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the criminal cases.
● Office of the Special Prosecutor directed petitioner to submit his counter-affidavit to the complaint.
● Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss instead of a counter-affidavit. He alleged that the order involved
previously dismissed cases, hence, there was no legal justification for the OSP and the Ombudsman to further
conduct preliminary investigation.
● OSP disregarded the motion to dismiss since it’s a prohibited pleading in rules of procedure for preliminary
investigation in Ombudsman, unless it is based on the lack of jurisdiction. Hence, criminal cases for the same offenses
were thus filed by OSP with Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE: W/N Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion to dismiss the preliminary
investigation. -NO

RULING:
● Petitioner argues that respondent's act of proceeding with the preliminary investigation constitutes patently
reversible error. He claims that since Criminal Cases Nos. 13406-13429 have already been dismissed, the PCGG should
have filed a new complaint with a new docket number. He insists that the Ombudsman could not conduct another
preliminary investigation using the old docket numbers.
● Petitioner also maintains that the offenses for which he was charged had already prescribed in February 2001, hence
the preliminary investigation conducted anew by the Ombudsman should be terminated.
● The ruling of the OSP/Ombudsman is consistent with the Decision of this Court in Velasco v. Hon. Casaclang, where we
held that, the Deputy Ombudsman properly denied the motion to quash and motion for reconsideration of petitioner
therein, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Revised Rules of Court and Administrative Order (AO) No. 07 of
the Ombudsman. Section 4 (d) of AO No. 07 disallows a motion to quash (or dismiss) except on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. In that case, as in this one, no absence of jurisdiction is perceived.
 ● The Constitution vested the Office of the Ombudsman with powers and duties to investigate on its own, or on
complaint by any person, any illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient act or omission of any public official or employee
● We held that the OSP/Ombudsman is the proper authority to conduct the preliminary investigation of the alleged
offenses committed by petitioner. Pursuant thereto, there is no need for a new complaint to be filed by PCGG because
the Ombudsman, on its own, may conduct a preliminary investigation of offenses committed by public officers.
● Petitioner's claim that the preliminary investigation be dismissed because it referred to the same docket
numbers of the dismissed informations, is erroneous. The assignment of a docket number is an internal
matter designed for efficient record keeping. It is usually written in the Docket Record in sequential order
corresponding to the date and time of filing a case.
● Petitioner also alleges that respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the preliminary
investigation on the ground of prescription of the offense. This allegation is a matter of defense which must be settled
in a full-blown trial. Evidence must be received to resolve the case on its merits.
● A preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and it is often the only means of discovering the persons who may
be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the fiscal to prepare the complaint or information. It is not a trial of the
case on the merits and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether
there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof, and it does not place the person against whom it is
taken in jeopardy.

DISPOSITION: Petition dismissed.