View full case

EDUARDO P. PILAPIL v. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

The petitioner in this case, Eduardo P. Pilapil, filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus seeking the annulment of the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 16672. He argued that the information filed against him for Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 was done without probable cause, and that the information filed was for violation of the Anti-Graft Law instead of malversation, which was the basis of the preliminary investigation.

The case stems from an incident where the petitioner, who is a Congressman, received an ambulance from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) on behalf of the municipality of Tigaon, Camarines Sur. However, instead of delivering the ambulance to the municipality, he failed to do so. The Sangguniang Bayan of the municipality was unaware of the donation and requested an ambulance from the PCSO. The mayor sought the help of Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Garchitorena, who informed him about the previous donation and the municipality's request was denied. When the mayor reiterated the request, stating that no vehicle has been received, it was discovered that the petitioner still had the ambulance and eventually returned it. The municipality later received a brand new ambulance.

Justice Garchitorena then wrote to Chief Justice Fernan about the incident and sent a letter-complaint against the petitioner to Deputy Ombudsman Colayco. The case was eventually referred to the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon and the petitioner was required to submit his counter-affidavit. Several resolutions were passed, and ultimately, the Ombudsman directed the filing of an information for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 against the petitioner.

On April 3, 1991, the information for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 was filed against the petitioner in the Sandiganbayan. A warrant of arrest was issued, but the petitioner was allowed to deposit a bail bond. He later filed a motion to quash, arguing that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over him due to the absence of probable cause in the preliminary investigation. The motion was denied and his subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied.

The petitioner then sought remedy from the Supreme Court, challenging the denial of his motion to quash by the Sandiganbayan. He argued that no preliminary investigation was conducted specifically for the charge of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, as the preliminary investigation was conducted for the charge of malversation. The Supreme Court clarified that the absence of preliminary investigation is not a ground to quash a complaint or information and that the proper procedure is to hold the proceedings in abeyance and remand the case to the appropriate office for a preliminary investigation.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the absence of preliminary investigation affects the court's jurisdiction and renders the judgment void.

  2. Whether there was no preliminary investigation conducted in this case necessitating the suspension of the proceedings.

  3. Whether the lack of a new preliminary investigation renders the information filed against the petitioner null and void.

  4. Whether the petitioner's failure to invoke his right to a preliminary investigation constitutes a waiver of such right.

  5. Whether there is probable cause to charge the petitioner with violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft law.

  6. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support the finding of probable cause for the offense charged.

  7. Whether the Presiding Justice used his influence in initiating the complaint against the petitioner.

RULING:

  1. The absence of preliminary investigation does not affect the court's jurisdiction. It is not a ground to quash a complaint or information. Lack of jurisdiction refers to the lack of any law conferring upon the court the power to inquire into the facts and apply the law. Any irregularity in the exercise of that power is not a ground for a motion to quash. Lack of jurisdiction is not waivable, but absence of preliminary investigation is waivable.

  2. There was a preliminary investigation conducted in this case. The petitioner was properly apprised of the act complained of and given ample opportunity to present his defense. The preliminary designation of the offense in the directive to file a counter-affidavit is not conclusive. The Ombudsman is guided by the evidence presented in the course of preliminary investigation in formulating and designating the offense.

  3. The lack of a new preliminary investigation does not render the information filed against the petitioner null and void, as there was only one information filed as a result of the preliminary investigation conducted by the office of the Ombudsman.

  4. The petitioner's failure to invoke his right to a preliminary investigation constitutes a waiver of such right. The lack of a new preliminary investigation cannot be invoked for the first time at the appellate level.

  5. The presence or absence of the elements of the crime, such as undue injury, manifest partiality or evident bad faith, and the act being done in the discharge of official duties, are evidentiary in nature and are matters of defense to be resolved after a full-blown trial on the merits. There is probable cause if there are facts and circumstances that would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe that the person charged is guilty of the crime.

  6. The court finds that there is sufficient evidence to support the finding of probable cause for the offense charged. The court clarifies that at this stage, it is not required to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but rather whether there is sufficient evidence that inclines the mind to believe that the accused is guilty.

  7. The court dismisses the insinuations that the Presiding Justice used his influence in initiating the complaint against the petitioner. The court states that bringing possible transgressions of the law to the attention of appropriate officials is the responsibility of any private citizen, including the highest official of the land.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Absence of preliminary investigation does not affect the court's jurisdiction.

  • Lack of jurisdiction refers to the lack of any law conferring upon the court the power to inquire into the facts and apply the law.

  • Any irregularity in the exercise of the court's jurisdiction is not a ground for a motion to quash.

  • Lack of jurisdiction is not waivable, but absence of preliminary investigation is waivable.

  • Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial and is the means of discovering whether a person may be reasonably charged with a crime.

  • The preliminary designation of the offense is not conclusive. The Ombudsman is guided by the evidence presented in the course of preliminary investigation.

  • The right to a preliminary investigation is not a fundamental right and may be waived expressly or by silence.

  • Lack of a new preliminary investigation cannot be invoked for the first time at the appellate level and constitutes a waiver of such right.

  • Probable cause exists if there are facts and circumstances that would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe that the person charged is guilty of the crime. It does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction.

  • Proper and sufficient testimony is necessary to establish whether an act caused undue injury to the government and whether the act was done with manifest partiality or evident bad faith.

  • In a motion to set aside an information on the ground of lack of probable cause, the court is not guided by the standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by the existence of sufficient evidence that inclines the mind to believe in the accused's guilt.

  • The act of bringing possible transgressions of the law to the attention of appropriate officials is the responsibility of any private citizen, including the highest official of the land.