Roman Cruz vs People [G.R. No. 110436] Case Digest

 

Roman Cruz vs People

G.R. No. 110436

Facts: The Government Service Insurance System (the GSIS, for short) filed two separate criminal complaints against petitioner Roman A. 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, as amended. As a result of the filing of two informations with respondent Sandiganbayan involving the same accused (herein petitioner) and the same set of facts, Criminal Case No. 14252 was consolidated with Criminal Case No. 14134 which was pending before the First Division of respondent Sandiganbayan. Respondent Sandiganbayan, however, remanded the consolidated cases against petitioner to the Office of the Ombudsman for reinvestigation. 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 P. Tamayo of the Office of the Ombudsman prepared a Resolution, 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, which was denied for lack of merit. Hence, petitioner filed the instant petition. Issue: Whether or not Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the information considering that the Ombudsman’s approval of the order dismissing the complaint. Held: No. Ratio: The conduct of a preliminary investigation should be distinguished as to whether it is an investigation for the determination of a sufficient ground for the filing of the information or one for the determination of a probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The first aspect of preliminary investigation is executive in nature. It is part of the prosecution’s job. The second kind is more properly called preliminary examination, is judicial in nature and is lodged with the judge. For the latter, in the exercise of the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal’s report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.  Thanks to our sponsors: 1. Arnel Molleno 2. Carmilita Vardeh 3. Analiza Garcia 4. Lynche Jover 5. Vladimir Yaplito