Roman Cruz, Jr. v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 110436, June 27, 1994

FACTS:

The GSIS filed two separate criminal complaints against petitioner Roman Cruz, Jr., a former public official who used to be the President and General Manager of the GSIS and, also, the President of the Manila Hotel, for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The first complaint against petitioner was filed with the Office of the Special Prosecutor while the second, which involved the same set of facts, was filed with the PCGG but which was later endorsed to the Office of the Ombudsman.

A preliminary investigation was conducted by the PCGG where petitioner duly submitted his counter-affidavit. As a consequence’ of said investigation, an Information was filed with the first Division of the Sandiganbayan, docketed as Criminal Case No. 14134, charging petitioner with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.

During the proceedings before the OSP, petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint. The OSP, however, denied the motion and filed with the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan an Information charging petitioner with Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents, docketed as Criminal Case No. 14252. Petitioner was deemed by the OSP to have waived his right to submit a counter-affidavit and supporting evidence.

Criminal Case No. 14252 was consolidated with Criminal Case No. 14134 which was pending before the First Division of respondent Sandiganbayan.

The Sandiganbayan remanded the consolidated cases against petitioner to the Office of the Ombudsman for reinvestigation. Criminal Case No. 14134, however, was dismissed.

During the preliminary investigation conducted anew by the Office of the Ombudsman, petitioner submitted his counter-affidavit and supporting documents. After the completion of said investigation, Prosecutor Leonardo Tamayo of the Office of the Ombudsman prepared a Resolution dated February 11, 1992, which recommended the withdrawal of the Information in Criminal Case No. 14252.

Respondent Ombudsman, however, despite the above recommendation of the investigating prosecutor ordered the prosecution to proceed under the existing Information in Criminal Case No. 14252.

Petitioner thus filed with respondent Sandiganbayan (First Division) an Omnibus Motion to Quash the Information, dated September 17, 1992, wherein he prayed ". . . for the production of (the) record of the preliminary investigation), and that the information be quashed outright or the disapproval of the Ombudsman set aside, or in the alternative, that the Office of the Ombudsman be ordered to conduct further proceedings, particularly the handwriting analysis prayed for by the petitioner which would establish who committed the alleged falsification.

The Omnibus Motion and its Motion for Reconsideration were denied.

 

ISSUE:

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse of discretion in not requiring the production of the record of the preliminary investigation

 

RULING:

YES. Petitioner relies on the provisions of Section 8, Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit:

Sec. 8. Record of preliminary investigation. — The record of the preliminary investigation whether conducted by a judge or a fiscal, shall not form part of the record of the case in the Regional Trial Court. However, the said court, on its own initiative or that of any party, may order the production of the record or any part thereof whenever the same shall be necessary in the resolution of the case or any incident therein, or shall be introduced as evidence by the party requesting for its production.

Petitioner’s prayer for the production of the record is intended not only for proper observance of the constitutional requirement that probable cause be determined personally by the judge, but also to enable him to examine the evidence and prepare his defenses and for trial.

Public respondents contend that the production of the record of the preliminary examination is not necessary since petitioner can always resort to any of the modes of discovery available to an accused under the Rules of Court, specifically citing Section 11 of Rule 116, which provides:

Sec. 11. Production or inspection of material evidence in possession of prosecution. — On motion of the accused showing good cause and with notice to all parties, the court, in order to prevent surprise, suppression, or alteration, may order the prosecution to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing, of any written statements given by the complainant and other witnesses in any investigation of the offense conducted by the prosecution or any other investigating officers, as well as of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, not otherwise privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the case, and which are in the possession or under the control of the prosecution, the police, or any other law investigating agencies.

This rule refers to the right of the accused to move for production or inspection of material evidence in the possession of the prosecution. It authorizes the defense to inspect, copy or photograph any evidence of the prosecution in its possession after obtaining the permission of the court. A motion showing good reasons for the granting of the permission must be filed by the defense for this purpose, with notice to all parties.

It will be noted at the outset that precisely, as suggested by public respondents, herein petitioner, in asking for the production of the records of the preliminary investigation in order to enable him to prepare for his defense and for trial, is actually trying to avail of this mode of discovery. There was good cause shown for the motion to produce the records, that is, so that they may be introduced as evidence by the party requesting for their production, which is one of the grounds provided for under Section 8, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.

It is true that the granting of permission lies within the discretion of the court. However, respondent court in this case has failed to sufficiently justify its refusal to have the records of the preliminary investigation produced before it so that petitioner may use them for his defense, either in its resolutions denying petitioner’s Omnibus Motion and Motion for Reconsideration, or in the pleadings and Memorandum filed by herein respondents before this Court. Consequently, we find no reason to deny petitioner the right to avail of such mode of discovery. If only for the reason that petitioner should be given the opportunity to inspect the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation solely for the purpose of enabling him to prepare for his defense and for trial, this questioned resolution of respondent Sandiganbayan should be modified.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Eddie Dizon and Bryan Dizon v. Yolanda Vida Beltran, G.R. No. 221071, January 18, 2017

FACTS: Eddie, married to Verona, started working as a seafarer in the 1980s. He has two children, namely, Bryan and James Christopher Dizon. Verona was a housewife. She and her mother, together with Bryan and James, resided in the house on the disputed property located in Davao City. The registered owners were "Verona, married to Eddie." In 2008, Verona filed before the RTC a petition for the issuance of Temporary and Permanent Protection Orders against Eddie and James. On April 9, 2008, the Spouses Dizon entered into a Compromise Agreement, whereby they contemplated selling the disputed property in the amount of not less than ₱4,000,000, which price shall be increased by ₱100,000 for every succeeding year until the same is finally sold. They would thereafter equally divide the proceeds from the sale. On September 27, 2009, Eddie left for abroad. Verona died on December 8, 2009. On December 9, 2009, Eddie’s brother Jun Dizon informed him about Verona's death. ...
Read more

Karen Nuñez Vito v. Norma Moises-Palma, G.R. No. 224466, March 27, 2019

FACTS: Petitioners' father, Vicentico Nufiez, was the original owner of Lot No. 2159-A located in Capiz with TCT No. T-16612. In May 1992, Vicentico borrowed P30,000 from Rosita Moises and as security, executed a real estate mortgage over his property. Since Rosita had no money, the funds came from Norma Moises-Palma, Rosita's daughter. According to petitioners, the loan was subsequently paid as evidenced by an Affidavit Authorizing Release of Mortgage. Upon Vicentico's and Placida's deaths, the subject lot was transmitted to their heirs. On June 28, 1995, Norma was able to have all petitioners, except Alden, sign a   Deed of Adjudication and Sale wherein petitioners purportedly sold to Norma their in the subject lot for P50,000. After the execution of the DAS, Norma immediately took possession of the subject lot. Instead of paying cash, Norma executed a Promissory Note on July 1, 1995. Upon prodding of petitioners, Norma executed an Acknowledgment of Debt. De...
Read more

Rodolfo Valencia v. The Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 165996, October 17, 2005

FACTS: On February 10, 1999, petitioner Rodolfo Valencia was charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Upon arraignment on April 13, 1999, petitioner pleaded not guilty. On March 24, 2003, the parties submitted a Joint Stipulation of Facts, to wit: 1. Valencia, had been the Governor of the Province of Oriental Mindoro, for having won in the gobernatorial race in the May 1992 local and provincial election; 2. During the 1992 election, Mr. Cresente Umbao of Pola, Oriental, Mindoro also ran for the position of councilor in the Municipality of Pola, Oriental Mindoro but he lost; 3. On October 17, 1992, Councilor Antonio Mercene, Jr. of Pola, Oriental, Mindoro died thus creating a permanent vacancy in the membership position of Sanguniang Bayan of Pola, Oriental Mindoro. 4. On December 1, 1992 then Governor Rodolfo G. Valencia of Oriental, Mindoro, appointed Cresente Umbao to the position of a councilor in the ...
Read more