Pcgg vs. Desierto g.r. no.

132120 february 10, 2003 panganiban, j:

Facts: this case is a petition for certiotari under rule 65 of the rules of court, seeking to
reverse the may 31, 1997 resolution and the october 24, 1997 order of then
ombudsman aniano a. Desierto who exonerated herminio t. Disini of the crimes of
corruption of public officials in relation to bribery and of violation of the anti-graft law.

The assailed resolution dismissed the charges against disini for lack of prima facie
evidence , while the assailed order denied petitioner s motion for reconsideration.

The pcgg charged disini with bribing the late president ferdinand e. Marcos as a
means to induce him to assist and favor individuals and corporate entities. The charge
pertained to the negotiation, award, signing, amendment and implementation of the
main and related contracts for the philippine nuclear power plant (pnpp) project of the
national power corporation (npc), as a result the afore-mentioned public official
accumulated and benefited from unlawful acquisition of income or profits.

Issue: whether or not the pcgg has submitted sufficient evidence to be the cause of
belief that an offense has been committed by disini, but in grave abuse of discretion of
the then ombudsman desierto dismissed the charges?

Ruling: yes. In sum, the pcgg presented sufficient evidence to engender a well-founded
belief that at least one crime had been committed, and that disini was probably guilty
thereof and should be held for trial. Also, the pcgg has sufficiently established probable
cause to show that disini had capitalized, exploited and taken advantage of his close
personal relations with the former president. Should the appropriate information(s) be
filed, nothing should prevent the ombudsman from presenting other pieces of evidence
to buttress the prosecution s case and to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
offense(s) charged. In the present case, herminio t. Disini is being charged as the
principal while the others are accessories or an accomplice. Petition granted, the
resolution and order are set aside and the ombudsman is directed to file in the proper
court the appropriate criminal charge(s) against him.
Hashim vs. Boncan

topic: preliminary investigation and inquest; definition, nature and purpose; definition

when required

Nature: petition for certiorari and mandamus

Facts: hashim was caught red handed in possession of counterfeit treasury certificates.
A criminal action was filed against him. A warrant for his arrest was issued on the
strength of the fiscals sworn statement that he had conducted a preliminary
investigation and that he had examined the witnesses under oath. Prior to his
arraignment, his counsel filed a motion asking that the fiscal furnish the clerk of court
with the testimony of the witnesses who testified at the preliminary investigation, or an
extract thereof, as well as the alleged 560 counterfeit treasury certificate or in the
alternative, that the court immediately conduct an investigation.

Fiscals position: there is no necessity for the court to conduct another preliminary
investigation because the office of the fiscal has already conducted one in accordance
with the law.

Supreme court: no need for another preliminary investigation. The right to pi is

statutory and not constitutional. Its purpose is to secure the innocent against hasty,
malicious, and oppressive prosecutions, and to protect him from open and public
accusation of crime, from the trouble, expenses and anxiety of public trial, and also to
protect the state from useless and expensive prosecutions. The new rules on pi were
drafted in light of the courts experience where pis drag on for weeks and even months,
so now rules were promulgated to make it as simple and speedy as is consistent with
the rights of the accused. As the name implies, the proceedings are only preliminary,
the investigation judge or prosecutor acts upon probable cause and reasonable belief
and not upon proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is not an occasion for full and
exhaustive display of the parties evidence but only for the presentation of such
evidence as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed
and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. In this case, a pi was already
conducted by the fiscal, the result of which became the basis of an information which in
turn was the basis for the courts decision to issue a warrant.

to ask for an abstract testimony of such proceedings for no other purpose than to
scrutinize the evidence which convinced the fiscal and the judge that there was
reasonable ground to proceed against the petitioner, is contrary the nature of pis as a
brief investigation.

Administrative order no. 07 [rules of procedureof the office of the ombudsmanrule

iiprocedure in criminal cases]

Section 1. Grounds

A criminal complaint may be brought for an offense in violation of r.a. 3019, as

amended, r.a.1379 as amended, r.a. 6713, title vii, chapter ii, section 2of the revised
penal code, and for such other offenses committed by public officers and employees in
relation to office.

Section 2. Evaluation

Upon evaluating the complaint, the investigating officer shall recommend whether it
may be:

A) dismissed outright for want of palpable merit;

B) referred to respondent for comment;

C) indorsed to the proper government office or agency which has jurisdiction over the
case;

D) forwarded to the appropriate office or official forfact-finding investigation;

E) referred for administrative adjudication; or

F) subjected to a preliminary investigation.

Section 4. Procedure

The preliminary investigation of cases falling under the jurisdiction of the

sandiganbayan and regional trial courts shall be conducted in the manner prescribed in
section 3, rule 112 of the rules of court, subject to the following provisions:

A) if the complaint is not under oath or is based only on official reports, the
investigating officer shall require the complainant or supporting witnesses to execute
affidavits to substantiate the complaints.

B) after such affidavits have been secured, the investigating officer shall issue an
order, attaching thereto a copy of the affidavits and other supporting documents,
directing the respondents to submit, within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, his
counter-affidavits and controverting evidence with proof of service thereof on the
complainant. The complainant may file reply affidavits within ten (10)days after service
of the counter-affidavits.

C) if the respondents does not file a counter-affidavit, the investigating officer may
consider the comment filed by him, if any, as his answer to the complaint. In any event,
the respondent shall have access to the evidence on record.

D) no motion to dismiss shall be allowed except for lack of jurisdiction. Neither may a
motion for a bill of particulars be entertained. If respondents desires any matter in the
complainant's affidavit to be clarified, the particularization thereof may be doneat the
time of clarificatory questioning in the manner provided in paragraph (f) of this section.

E) if the respondents cannot be served with the order mentioned in paragraph 6

hereof, or having been served, does not comply therewith, the complaint shall be
deemed submitted for resolution on the basis of the evidence on the record.

F) if, after the filing of the requisite affidavits and their supporting evidences, there are
facts material to the case which the investigating officer may need to be clarified on, he
may conduct a clarificatory hearing during which the parties shall be afforded the
opportunity to be present but without the right to examine or cross-examine the witness
being questioned. Where the appearance of the parties or witnesses is impracticable,
the clarificatory questioning may be conducted in writing, where by the questions
desired to be asked by the investigating officer or a party shall be reduced into writing
and served on the witness concerned who shall be required to answer the same in
writing and under oath.

G) upon the termination of the preliminary investigation, the investigating officer shall
forward the records of the case together with his resolution to the designated
authorities for their appropriate action thereon. No information may be filed and
no complaint may be dismissed without the written authority or approval of the
ombudsman in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the sandiganbayan, or of the
proper deputy ombudsman in all other cases.

Section 5. Cases falling under the jurisdiction of municipal trial courts.

Cases falling under the jurisdiction of the office of the ombudsman which are
cognizable by municipal trial courts, including those subject to the rule on summary
procedure may only be filed in court by information approved by the ombudsman or the
proper deputy ombudsman.
Section 6. Notice to parties.

the parties shall be served with a copy of the resolution as finally approved by the
ombudsman or by the proper deputy ombudsman.

Section 7. Motion for reconsideration

-a) only one motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation of an approved order or

resolution shall be allowed, the same to be filled within five (5)days from notice thereof
with the office of the ombudsman, or the proper deputy ombudsman as the case may
be, with corresponding leave of court in cases where information has already been
filed incourt;

-b) 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. (as amended by administrative order no. 15, dated
february 16,2000)

Held: no. Rule 108 pertains to a pi conducted by a justice of the peace or

by a municipal judge, not by a fiscal. Petition for
Certiorari
and
Mandamus
dismissed.

The phrase "corresponding officer" in sec. 13 does not pertain to the

fiscal. It refers to otherofficers also authorized to conduct pi, e.g. the
justice of the peace.
1. The purpose of transmission of abstract was explained in
Us v. Rafael
: the purpose ofrequiring the justice of the peace to forward to the provincial
fiscal a brief statement of thesubstance of the testimony is to enable the
provincial fiscal to decide 1) w/n he shall file acomplaint against the defendant,
and 2) to enable him, in case he decides to prosecute, toproperly formulate
said complaint. It is practically impossible, in the thickly populated provincesof
the philippine islands, for the provincial fiscal to personally attend all of
the trials and pi heldbefore the justices of the peace.
O
if the abstract in sec. 13 is intended
For
the fiscal, the duty to transmit is plainly not castupon him (if it's
For
him, it can't be
From
him). Further, if the said abstract is
For the useand guidance of the fiscal
, the failure to transmit it cannot be prejudicial to the accused.2. Sec. 13 also
requires the "corresponding officer" to transmit the warrant of arrest. Hence,
theofficer must be one who is authorized to issue such a warrant. The fiscal is
not so authorized.3. Sec. 13 also assumes the 2-stage pi provided for
justices of the peace and judges, not for thefiscal. Under existing laws, the city
fiscal conducts a single investigation, and this is asummary one. To say that
the respondent fiscal is bound by the procedure provided in the citedsection is
to duplicate proceedings, where at present there is but one, in contradiction
with thespirit of simplicity underlying the new rules.4. Sec. 13 requires the
"corresponding officer" to transmit the person of the defendant if not onbail.
This is impossible for the fiscal to comply with because he has no direct
control over theperson of the accused, not being empowered to order his
arrest or release.

to subject the respondent fiscal to the provisions of rule 108 sec. 11 (rights
of defendant afterarrest) is to
Prolong an otherwise brief investigation
Which said officer is authorized to conduct.

the
New rules of court have not repealed the existing laws
governing the fiscal's power toconduct pi. If neither sec. 11 nor sec. 13 of rule
108 is applicable to the pi conducted by the cityfiscal, as above shown, and if
existing legislation thereon is to be deemed repealed, then thematter would be
left uncovered by rule or law.

The right to pi is statutory, not constitutional

. Its oft-repeated purpose is to secure the innocentagainst hasty, malicious,
and oppressive prosecutions, and to protect him from open
and publicaccusation of crime, from the trouble, expenses and anxiety of a
public trial, and also to protect thestate from useless and expensive
prosecutions. The new rules were drafted in the light of thecourt's experience
with cases where preliminary investigations had dragged on for weeks and
evenmonths. The occasion is not for the full and exhaustive display of the
parties' evidence; it is for thepresentation of such evidence only as may
engender well- grounded belief that an offense hasbeen committed and that
the accused is probably guilty thereof. When all this is fulfilled, theaccused will
not be permitted to cast about for fancied reasons to delay the proceedings;
the time toask for more is at the trial.
Pi conducted by justice of the peace/ municipal judge
2 stages: the investigation 1) before and for the purpose of the issuance of the warrant of
arrest, and 2) that thereafter made for the purpose of their releasing the offender or filing
the information
Pi conducted by a fiscal

Single, summary investigation prior to filing the information in court.