FACTS:
Cesar Sarino is the registered owner
of a piece of land with buildings erected thereon. He leased the building to Pepito
B. Aquino and Adriano G. Samoy who are in turn subleasing it to several
stallholders. In September 1999, respondent Felicito R. Mejia, Municipal
Building Official of Bacoor, sent to the stallholders Notices of Violation of the National Building Code on the
grounds that the structures they were occupying were erected without building
permits and occupied by them without the necessary certificates of occupancy
having been first secured. On January 17, 2000, Mejia’s office sent letters dated January 10, 2000 to the
stallholders informing them that because of their repeated failure to comply
with the National Building Code and its implementing rules and regulations and
the Business Permit and Licensing Office Requirements, their stalls will be
closed down on January 24, 2000.
On February 16, 2000, a task force from the Bacoor
Municipal Hall effected the closure of the stalls through the installation of
galvanized iron fences.
Lessees
Aquino and Samoy thereafter filed before the Office of the Ombudsman a
complaint against respondent Jessie B. Castillo, in his capacity as Bacoor
Municipal Mayor, respondent Mejia and other municipal officials for violation
of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, as amended. The case was
decided in favor of the respondents. Thereafter, Sarino filed another case with
the same set of facts and cause of action with the office of the ombudsman
which in turn was decided in favor of Sarino due to the existence of probable
cause. Respondents moved for the reinvestigation, which was granted by the SB
which in turn, amended the amended information filed by the special prosecutor but
was nevertheless In favor of the private petitioners. In a Resolution dated May 9, 2005, the Sandiganbayan
denied the respondents’ Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause. On
October 10, 2005, the Sandiganbayan, upon motion for reconsideration filed by
respondents, reversed its May 9, 2005 Resolution and dismissed the case.
ISSUE:
Whether
the Sandiganbayan erred and decided a question of substance in a manner not in
accord with law and jurisprudence in conducting a second judicial determination
of probable cause in criminal case no. 27789, long after it issued the warrants
of arrest against the respondents.
HELD:
In
the instant case, there is no question that both the original and amended Informations were valid on their face
because they complied with Section 6, Rule
110 of the Rules of Court. Also, a scrutiny of the Resolution dated August 22,
2002 of the Ombudsman which precipitated the filing of the original Information
and the subsequent Memorandum dated August 4, 2004 recommending the amendment
of the Information would likewise show that the finding of probable cause
against the respondents were sufficiently supported by substantial evidence. As
a matter of fact, in the Resolution dated August 22, 2002, the Ombudsman took
pains to mention each element of the crime of violation of Section 3(e) of Rep.
Act No. 3019 and then one by one adequately explained how and why those
elements were satisfied.
Hence, as the amended Information was valid on its face
and there is no manifest error or arbitrariness on the part of the Ombudsman,
the Sandiganbayan erred in making an executive determination of probable cause
when it overturned the Ombudsman’s own determination.
No comments:
Post a Comment