PILAPIL - v - SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts:
4.
Upon verification
by the PCSO, petitioner returned the ambulance. Municipality of Tigaon thru
Mayor Lelis finally received it.
1.
PCSO donated an
ambulance (Mitsubishi L-300) to the Municipality if Tigaion, Camarines Sur.
Petitioner (Congressman) received the ambulance but did not deliver it to the municipality.
2.
Unaware of the
donation, Sangguniang Bayan passed a resolution requesting PCSO for an
ambulance. Mayor Lelis sought intercession of Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice
Garchitorena.
3.
Garchitorena
contracted PCSO and learned about the donation which he informed the Mayor
Lelis. Mayor Lelis reiterated request making reference to the certification of
the municipal treasurer that no vehicle from PCSO/anyone has been received.
5.
Justice
Garchitorena send a letter-complaint against petitioner about ambulance. He was
requested to submit all relevant records and documents but failed to do so. In
this stead, PCSO Regional manager of the Special Projects Department Jamora and
Mayor Lelis submitted their respective affidavits.
6.
A warrant of
arrest was issued against petitioner. He was allowed to deposit a bail bond of
P15k and the arrest warrant was recalled.
7.
Petitioner filed
a motion to quash on the ground that respondent Sandiganbayan has no
jurisdiction over his person because the information was filed without probable
cause since there is no proof adduced in the preliminary investigation of any
of the elements of the crime defined in Sec 3(e) of RA 3019.
Issue:
W/N Presiding Judge Garchitorena used the influence of his office in initiating
the complaint against petitioner
Held:
Dismissed.
Ratio:
The act
of bringing to the attention of appropriate officials possible transgression of
the law is as much an obligation of the highest official of the land as it is
the responsibility of any private person.
W/N the
Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to quash and motion for reconsideration
-
Lack of
jurisdiction contemplated in Sec3(b) Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court
refers to the lack of any law conferring upon the court the power to inquire
into the facts, to apply the law and to declare the punishment for an offense
in a regular course of judicial proceeding. When the court has jurisdiction, as
in this case, any irregularity in the exercise of that power is not a ground
for a motion to quash.
W/N the
absence of preliminary investigation necessitates the suspension of the
proceedings in the case until after the outcome of such preliminary
investigation
-
The right to
preliminary investigation is not a fundamental right and may be waived
expressly or by silence. Failure of the accused to invoke his right to a
preliminary investigation constituted waiver of such right and any irregularity
that attended it. The alleged lack of valid preliminary investigation in this
case came only as an afterthought to gain reversal of the denial of the motion
to quash.
W/N an
act was done causing injury to the government and W/N the same was done with
manifest partiality of evident bad faith can only be made out by proper and
sufficient testimony
-
The court should
not be guided by the rules that accused must be shown to be guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt, but rather whether there is sufficient evidence which
inclines the mind to believe, without necessarily leaving room for doubt, that
accused is guilty thereof (probable cause).
Probable
cause defined/case doctrine
***a
reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is, or may be, well founded,
such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a ordinary
person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or
strong suspicion, that a thing is so. The term does not mean “actual and positive cause” nor it import absolute certainty. It is merely based
on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus a finding of probable cause does not
require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a
conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or ommission
complained of constitutes the offense charged. Precisely there is a trial for
the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge. xxx***
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.
