Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
v.
Sandiganbayan
G.R.
No.
172476-99
September
15,
2010
Key
Take-Away:
The
filing
of
a
motion
for
reconsideration/reinvestigation
in
the
OMB
shall
NOT
BAR
the
OMB
to
file
the
corresponding
information
in
the
respective
Court
(i.e.
Sandiganbayan).
Facts:
Jose
Ramiscal,
Jr.
(RAMISCAL)
was
a
retired
officer
of
the
Armed
Forces
of
the
Philippines
(AFP).
During
his
term
as
the
president
of
the
AFP-Retirement
and
Separation
Benefits
System,
he
approved
the
acquisition
of
15,020
sqm
of
land
in
General
Santos
City
for
housing
devt
projects.
RAMISCAL,
along
with
Atty.
Flaviano
(attorney-in-fact
of
the
12
vendors),
executed
and
signed
12
deeds
of
sale
over
the
lands
at
the
agreed
price
of
P10,500
per
sqm.
However,
the
deeds
of
sale
reflected
a
purchase
price
of
only
P3,000
per
sqm
instead
of
the
P10,500.
On
Dec.
1997,
Congresswoman
Antonino
filed
in
the
Ombudsman
(OMB)
a
complaint-affidavit
against
the
petitioner
for:
o Violation
of
R.A.
No.
3019
(Anti-Graft
and
Corrupt
Practices
Act)
o Malversation
of
public
funds
or
property
through
falsification
of
public
documents.
After
preliminary
investigation,
OMB
found
RAMSICAL
guilty
of
violation
of
Sec.
3
of
R.A.
No.
3019.
On
Feb.
1999,
RAMSICAL
filed
his
first
motion
for
reconsideration,
which
was
set
aside
because
it
was
proven
that
RAMSICAL
indeed
participated
and
affixed
his
signature
on
the
deeds
of
sale
with
the
false
purchase
price.
Afterwards,
OMB
filed
in
the
Sandiganbayan
12
informations
for
the
falsification
of
documents
of
RAMSICAL
and
other
co-accused.
On
Feb.
2006,
pending
his
SECOND
MR
in
the
OMB,
the
petitioner
was
arraigned
in
the
Sandiganbayan.
However,
RAMSICAL
refused
to
enter
a
plea.
Because
of
his
refusal,
the
Sandiganbayan
entered
in
his
favor
a
plea
of
not
guilty.
RAMSICAL
filed
a
motion
to
SET
ASIDE
his
arraignment
for
the
reason
that
he
still
has
an
MR
concerning
the
OMBs
findings
of
probable
cause
against
him.
Sandiganbayan
denied
his
motion
stating
that
whatever
defense
or
evidence
he
may
have
should
be
presented
in
the
trial
of
the
case
before
it.
Issue:
W/N
the
Sandiganbayan
commit
grave
abuse
of
discretion
when
it
denied
petitioners
motion
to
set
aside
his
arraignment
pending
resolution
of
his
second
MR
in
the
Ombudsmans
finding
of
probable
cause
against
him.
->
NO
Held:
No,
the
Sandiganbayan
did
not
commit
grave
abuse
of
discretion
when
it
denied
RAMSICALs
motion
to
set
aside
his
arraignment
because
there
was
a
pending
MR
in
the
OMB.
It
is
expressly
mentioned
in
Sec.
7(b),
Rule
II
of
the
Rules
of
Procedure
of
the
OMB,
o The
filing
of
a
motion
for
reconsideration/reinvestigation
SHALL
NOT
BAR
the
filing
of
the
corresponding
information
in
Court
on
the
basis
of
the
finding
of
probable
cause
in
the
resolution
subject
of
the
motion.
(Emphasis
supplied)
If
the
filing
of
information
cannot
be
barred,
so
should
the
arraignmentwhich
in
the
normal
course
of
criminal
procedure
logically
follows
the
filing
of
the
information.
The
SC
also
cited
several
provisions
from
the
Speedy
Trial
Act
of
1998
and
Rule
116
of
the
Rules
of
Court,
which
meant
that
not
after
30
days
from
the
filing
of
the
information,
the
arraignment
must
automatically
follow.
Though
the
SC
admitted
there
are
instances
(Sec.
11
of
the
Rules
of
Court)
wherein
arraignment
could
be
suspended,
however,
RAMSICAL
failed
to
prove
a
valid
ground.
Additionally,
RAMSICAL
already
filed
his
first
MR
to
the
OMB.
Under
Sec.
7,
Rule
II
of
the
Rules
of
Court,
RAMSICAL
can
no
longer
file
for
another.
Otherwise,
there
will
be
no
end
to
litigation.
admo.2a.als.2018