View full case

BRIG. GEN. JOSE RAMISCAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

Petitioner Jose S. Ramiscal, Jr. was the President of the AFP-Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS) from 5 April 1994 to 27 July 1998. During his term, the AFP-RSBS approved the acquisition of land in General Santos City. Petitioner, on behalf of AFP-RSBS, executed bilateral deeds of sale with the individual vendors for the land at the price of P10,500.00 per square meter. However, Atty. Nilo J. Flaviano, as the attorney-in-fact of the vendors, executed unilateral deeds of sale reflecting a purchase price of only P3,000.00 per square meter. The unilateral deeds of sale were presented for registration and became the basis for the transfer certificates of title issued by the Register of Deeds to AFP-RSBS.

On 18 December 1997, a complaint-affidavit was filed against petitioner and other respondents for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and malversation of public funds or property through falsification of public documents. After preliminary investigation, the Ombudsman found probable cause against petitioner and filed several informations in the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman's finding, and the Sandiganbayan gave the prosecution 60 days to evaluate the evidence and inform the court of its findings. Eventually, the Office of the Special Prosecutor recommended petitioner's exclusion from the informations, but the Office of Legal Affairs recommended otherwise. The Office of the Ombudsman for Military approved the recommendation to drop petitioner's name from the informations. However, the recommendation was not manifested before the Sandiganbayan as a final disposition of petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

The records of the case were reviewed by a panel of prosecutors, who found that petitioner participated in and signed various documents for the purchase of the land at the price of P10,500.00 per square meter. The panel of prosecutors concluded that there was probable cause for petitioner's continued prosecution and recommended the denial of his motion for reconsideration. Ombudsman Gutierrez approved the recommendation, and petitioner was arraigned. He filed a motion to set aside his arraignment pending resolution of his second motion for reconsideration, but the Sandiganbayan denied the motion, prompting petitioner to file this special civil action for certiorari.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not there was probable cause to indict petitioner.

  2. Whether or not the arraignment of petitioner should be suspended.

  3. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion to set aside his arraignment.

RULING:

  1. The court held that there was probable cause to indict petitioner. The Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, as amended by Administrative Order No. 15, Series of 2001, allow for the immediate filing of an information in court upon a finding of probable cause, even during the pendency of a motion for reconsideration. Therefore, the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not bar the filing of the corresponding information in court.

  2. The court ruled that the arraignment should not be suspended. The accused must be arraigned within 30 days from the filing of the information or from the date the accused has appeared before the court. In this case, the accused's arraignment was not suspended because none of the grounds for suspension of arraignment were present.

  3. The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan in denying petitioner's motion to set aside his arraignment. The Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction and control over the case, and it is empowered to proceed with the trial in the manner it determines best conducive to orderly proceedings and speedy termination of the case. Unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court will not interfere with the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction and control over the case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The filing of a motion for reconsideration of the resolution finding probable cause does not bar the filing of the corresponding information in court.

  • Arraignment is the stage where the accused is formally informed of the charges against him and enters a plea of guilty or not guilty.

  • The 30-day period for arraignment is counted from the time the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

  • Suspension of arraignment is only allowed in specific instances, such as the accused suffering from an unsound mental condition, the existence of a prejudicial question, or a pending petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor.

  • The Ombudsman has wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory prerogatives, and the courts do not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause.

  • Once a case has been filed with the Sandiganbayan, it has full control over the case.

  • Grave abuse of discretion is present when power is exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or despotic manner.

  • The mere filing of a petition for certiorari does not automatically merit a suspension of the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan, unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued.