FACTS:

Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez filed a petition challenging the validity of twenty-four informations filed against him by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) for failure to file his statements of assets and liabilities. Romualdez argued that the PCGG Commissioner who conducted the preliminary investigation lacked the authority to do so. The Sandiganbayan deemed the preliminary investigation conducted by the PCGG as invalid but held that it did not affect the validity of the informations or the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan directed the Office of the Ombudsman to conduct a proper preliminary investigation. When Romualdez returned to the Philippines, he failed to submit the required counter-affidavits, prompting a reinvestigation. However, before the reinvestigation could be completed, the Sandiganbayan denied Romualdez's motion to quash the informations and scheduled his arraignment. In response, Romualdez filed a petition seeking to annul the denial of his motion to quash and to prohibit the Sandiganbayan from implementing it.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the lack of authority of the PCGG Commissioner to file the informations is a ground for quashing the complaint or information.

2. Whether certiorari is the proper remedy against the denial of a motion to quash.

3. Whether the amended information filed against the petitioner falls under the category of criminal actions for recovery of ill-gotten wealth as contemplated under Section 2(a) of Executive Order No. 1.

4. Whether there is evidence to justify the amendment of the information.

5. Whether the actions taken by the PCGG, including the filing of the information and amended information, should be struck down.

6. Whether the lack of authority of the officer signing the information can be cured by amendment.

7. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in terminating the reinvestigation being conducted by Prosecutor Lucero.

8. Whether the petitioner waived his right to a proper preliminary investigation.

9. Whether the Sandiganbayan prejudged the cases and deprived the petitioner of his right to due process.

10. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

11. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan failed to abide by the rules of procedure and what is fair and just.

RULING:

1. Yes, the lack of authority of the PCGG Commissioner to file the informations is a ground for quashing the complaint or information.

2. Yes, certiorari is the proper remedy against the denial of a motion to quash in special circumstances where there is a gross infringement of due process and the charges were filed by a person who had no authority to file them.

3. The Supreme Court held that:

4. The amended information filed against the petitioner does not fall under the category of criminal actions for recovery of ill-gotten wealth as contemplated under Section 2(a) of Executive Order No. 1.

5. There is no evidence to justify the amendment of the information.

6. All the actions taken by the PCGG in this case, including the filing of the information and amended information, should be struck down.

7. The lack of authority of the officer signing the information cannot be cured by amendment. A new information must be filed by the proper officer.

8. The Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in terminating the reinvestigation being conducted by Prosecutor Lucero.

9. The petitioner did not waive his right to a proper preliminary investigation as he was not properly notified of the clarificatory hearings.

10. Due to the defective nature of the informations in the criminal cases, there is no need to pass upon the petitioner's claim of prejudgment and violation of due process.

11. The petition is GRANTED. The orders of the Sandiganbayan dated June 8, 2000 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.

PRINCIPLES:

• The officer who files the information must have the authority to do so, and lack of authority is a ground for motion to quash. (Grounds for filing a motion to quash, Section 3, Rule 117, Rules of Court)

• The special civil action of certiorari and prohibition may be allowed in exceptional circumstances where there are special circumstances demonstrating the inadequacy of an appeal. (Quiñon v. Sandiganbayan, Raro v. Sandiganbayan)

• Trial courts should ensure procedural due process from custodial investigation up to rendition of judgment and should not ignore procedural irregularities that transpired before the criminal case reached the court.

• An invalid information is no information at all and cannot be the basis for criminal proceedings. If an information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form, it is subject to quashal.

• The accused must be charged and tried according to the procedure prescribed by law and with observance of their constitutional rights.

• Criminal due process requires that the accused must be proceeded against under the orderly processes of law.

• An infirmity in the information, such as lack of authority of the officer signing it, cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence, or even express consent.

• A valid and sufficient complaint or information is necessary in a prosecution.

• The right to a preliminary investigation is a substantive right.

• Courts must uphold the law and procedure and do what is fair and just.

• The Sandiganbayan must exercise its discretion in accordance with the rules of procedure and must do what is fair and just.

• The court must not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying motions for reconsideration.