Saludaga vs. SB
Saludaga vs. SB
Saludaga vs. SB
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Thus, the OSP re-filed the Information 5 dated August 17, 2007,
this time, docketed as Criminal Case No. SB-08 CRM 0263, with
the Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan, charging the
petitioners for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, by giving
unwarranted benefit to a private person, to the prejudice of the
government.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The re-filed information did not change the nature of the offense
charged, but merely modified the mode by which accused
committed the offense. The substance of such modification is not
such as to necessitate the conduct of another preliminary
investigation.
II
III
xxx
The case may be revived by the State within the time-bar either
by the refiling of the Information or by the filing of a new
Information for the same offense or an offense necessarily
included therein. There would be no need of a new preliminary
investigation. However, in a case wherein after the provisional
dismissal of a criminal case, the original witnesses of the
prosecution or some of them may have recanted their testimonies
or may have died or may no longer be available and new
witnesses for the State have emerged, a new preliminary
investigation must be conducted before an Information is refiled
or a new Information is filed. A new preliminary investigation is
also required if aside from the original accused, other persons are
charged under a new criminal complaint for the same offense or
necessarily included therein; or if under a new criminal complaint,
the original charge has been upgraded; or if under a new criminal
complaint, the criminal liability of the accused is upgraded from
that as an accessory to that as a principal. The accused must be
accorded the right to submit counter-affidavits and evidence.
No such circumstance is obtaining in this case, because there was
no modification in the nature of the charged
offense.1avvphi1 Consequently, a new preliminary investigation is
unnecessary and cannot be demanded by the petitioners.
Under Section 2, Rule 121 of the Rules of Court, the requisites for
newly discovered evidence are: (a) the evidence was discovered
after trial (in this case, after investigation); (b) such evidence
could not have been discovered and produced at the trial with
reasonable diligence; and (c) that it is material, not merely
cumulative, corroborative or impeaching, and is of such weight
that, if admitted, will probably change the judgment. 24
The special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court is intended to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The writ of
certiorari is directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial function that acted without or in excess of
its or his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Grave
abuse of discretion means such capricious or whimsical exercise
of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. To justify
the issuance of the writ of certiorari, the abuse of discretion must
be grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or
despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it
must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a
positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined,
or to act at all, in contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to
having acted without jurisdiction.31
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1
Penned by Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong, with Associate
Justices Jose R. Hernandez and Samuel R. Martires (sitting as
Special Member per Administrative Order No. 154-2007
dated December 21, 2007) concurring.
2
Annex B, Petition; Rollo, pp. 33-34
3
Annex C, id. at 35-37.
4
Annex 5 of the Comment; id. at 112.
5
Annex D, Petition; id. at 38-39.
6
Annex E, id. 41-52.
7
Annex 8 of the Comment, id. at 139-144.
8
Annex F, Petition, id. at 55-56.
9
Annex G, id. at 58-64.
10
Annex A, id. at 24-31.
11
Rollo, p. 8.
12
Id. at 84.
13
Id. at 226-231.
14
Albert v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 164015, February 26,
2009; Collantes v. Marcelo, G.R. Nos. 167006-07, August 14,
2007, 530 SCRA 142; Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
162314, October 25, 2004, 441 SCRA377 citing Jacinto v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 84571, October 2, 1989, 178 SCRA
254.
15
Santiago v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 109266, December 2,
1993, 228 SCRA 214; Bautista v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
136082, May 12, 2000, 332 SCRA 126; Evangelista v. People,
G.R. Nos. 108135-36, August 14, 2000, 337 SCRA 671;
Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 162314-17, October
25, 2004, 441 SCRA 377.
16
Agpalo, statutory Construction, 2003, p. 204; see also The
Heirs of George Poe v. Malayan InsuranceCompany, Inc.,
G.R. No. 156302, April 7, 2009
17
G.R. No. 169888, November 11, 2008, 570 SCRA 622.
18
Constantino v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 140656,
September 13, 2007, 533 SCRA 205 citing Pilapil v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 101978, April 7, 1993, 221
SCRA349.
19
Constantino v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 140656,
September 13, 2007, 533 SCRA 205 citing Pareño v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 107110-20, April 17, 1996, 256
SCRA 242.
20
G.R. No. 103102, March 6, 1992, 207 SCRA 134.
21
G.R. No. 134744, January 16, 2001, 349 SCRA 194.
22
G.R. No. 165751, April 12, 2005, 455 SCRA 736.
23
G.R. No. 149453, April 1, 2003, 400 SCRA 267.
24
Amarillo et al. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 145007-08,
January 28, 2003, 396 SCRA 434 citing Amper v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 120391, September 24,1997, 279
SCRA 434.
25
Annex 15 of Comment, Rollo pp. 181-183.
26
Respondent’s Memorandum dated September 22, 2009, id.
at 325.
27
G.R. No. 160772, July 13, 2009 citing Presidential
Commission on Good Government v. Desierto, G.R. No.
139296, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 207.
28
Peralta v. Desierto, G.R. No. 153152, October 19, 2005, 473
SCRA 322 citing Knecht v. Desierto, G.R. No. 121916, June
26, 1998, 291 SCRA 292; Tirol, Jr. v. COA, G.R. No. 133954,
August 3, 2000, 337 SCRA 198.
29
Peralta v. Desierto, G.R. No. 153152, October 19, 2005, 473
SCRA 322 citing PCGG v. Desierto, G.R. No. 132120,
February 10, 2003, 397 SCRA 171.
30
Ferrer v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 129036,
August 6, 2008, 561 SCRA 51 citing Galvante v. Casimiro
etal., G.R. No. 162808, April 22, 2008, 552 SCRA 304.
31
Julie’s Franchise Corp. et al. v. Ruiz et al., G.R. No. 180988,
August 28, 2009.