Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan, 883 SCRA 428, G.R. Nos. 205904-06 October 17, 2018
G.R. Nos. 205904-06. October 17, 2018.
GWENDOLYN F. GARCIA, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Ponente: A. REYES, JR., J.:
Doctrines:
It bears emphasizing that in Genuino v. De Lima, 861 SCRA 325 (2018), the Court already declared as unconstitutional DOJ Circular No. 41 on the ground that it has no legal basis and held, thus: x x x To begin with, there is no law particularly providing for the authority of the secretary of justice to curtail the exercise of the right to travel, in the interest of national security, public safety or public health. As it is, the only ground of the former DOJ Secretary in restraining the petitioners, at that time, was the pendency of the preliminary investigation of the Joint DOJ-COMELEC Preliminary Investigation Committee on the complaint for electoral sabotage against them. To be clear, DOJ Circular No. 41 is not a law. It is not a legislative enactment which underwent the scrutiny and concurrence of lawmakers, and submitted to the President for approval. It is a mere administrative issuance apparently designed to carry out the provisions of an enabling law which the former DOJ Secretary believed to be Executive Order (EO) No. 292, otherwise known as the “Administrative Code of 1987.” x x x x x x x x The questioned circular does not come under the inherent power of the executive department to adopt rules and regulations as clearly the issuance of HDO and WLO is not the DOJ’s business. As such, it is a compulsory requirement that there be an existing law, complete and sufficient in itself, conferring the expressed authority to the concerned agency to promulgate rules. On its own, the DOJ cannot make rules, its authority being confined to execution of laws. This is the import of the terms “when expressly provided by law” or “as may be provided by law” stated in Sections 7(4) and 7(9), Chapter 2, Title III, Book IV of E.O. 292. The DOJ is confined to filling in the gaps and the necessary details in carrying into effect the law as enacted. Without a clear mandate of an existing law, an administrative issuance is ultra vires. Consistent with the foregoing, there must be an enabling law from which DOJ Circular No. 41 must derive its life. Unfortunately, all of the supposed statutory authorities relied upon by the DOJ did not pass the completeness test and sufficient standard test. The DOJ miserably failed to establish the existence of the enabling law that will justify the issuance of the questioned circular. That DOJ Circular No. 41 was intended to aid the department in realizing its mandate only begs the question. The purpose, no matter how commendable, will not obliterate the lack of authority of the DOJ to issue the said issuance. Surely, the DOJ must have the best intentions in promulgating DOJ Circular No. 41, but the end will not justify the means. To sacrifice individual liberties because of a perceived good is disastrous to democracy.
SC Circular No. 39-97, admittedly, does not mention of Sandiganbayan. Following the argument of the petitioner, however, would mean that the issuance of HDO is a power pertaining to the RTCs alone, to the exclusion of all other courts. This is an inaccurate interpretation of the guidelines. The rationale for the issuance of SC Circular No. 39-97 was “to avoid the indiscriminate issuance of HDO resulting in inconvenience to the parties affected, the same being tantamount to an infringement of the right and liberty of an individual to travel.” It is in view of the perceived unnecessary impairment on the right to travel in certain instances that the guidelines for the issuance of HDOs were issued. It bears emphasis, however, that the circular was not meant to declare the RTC as the sole and exclusive authority in the issuance of HDOs. It only recognizes that the power exists in courts and, at the same time, seeks to temper its breadth by excluding criminal offenses cognizable by the first level courts, i.e., Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
The point of distinction in the guidelines is not on the type of court that may issue an HDO but the kind of cases involved. Thus, the first paragraph of the SC Circular No. 39-97 was worded as follows: 1. Hold Departure Orders shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts. x x x x x x x Notably, the language of the circular places emphasis on criminal cases that warrant the issuance of an HDO, specifically the graver or more serious transgressions of the law that are punishable with imprisonment of more than six years, which incidentally are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTCs. The circular was not meant to exclude all other courts from issuing HDO but, more accurately, seeks to make a distinction among the types of criminal offenses by excluding less grave and light offenses from the instances when an HDO may be validly issued. This is to avoid unnecessary restraint on the right to travel especially in instances when the gravity of the offense is not serious enough to warrant a restriction. Thus, the Court issued the circular as a means of regulating its own power pursuant to its authority to “promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights.”
That the Sandiganbayan was not mentioned in the circular only means it is given the full disposition of all the powers inherent in all courts of justice in order to effectuate the exercise of its jurisdiction, including the issuance of HDOs, if in its good judgment, it finds necessary in the administration of justice. It bears emphasizing that the Sandiganbayan is a special court tasked to hear and decide cases against public officers and employees and entrusted with the difficult task of policing and ridding the government ranks of the dishonest and corrupt. “The Constitution specifically made mention of the creation of this court precisely in response to a problem, the urgency of which cannot be denied, namely, dishonesty in the public service.” Confronted with the heavy responsibility of restoring “public office as a public trust,” the Sandiganbayan will need all means within its powers in order to hold erring public officials accountable for their misdeeds.
The right to travel may be impaired, if necessary, in interest of national security, public safety or public health. Apart from the presence of these exclusive grounds, there is a further requirement that there must be a law authorizing the impairment. The requirement for a law ensures that the necessity for the impairment has undergone the validation and deliberation of Congress before its enactment. The strict requirement for the concurrence of these two elements are formidable enough to serve as safeguard in the full enjoyment of the right to travel.
The power to issue HDO is an exercise of the court’s inherent power to preserve and to maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the case and the person of the accused. Inherent powers are innate and essential faculties that are fundamental to the constitution of an effective judicial system. They are integral to the creation of courts. They do not require legislative conferment or constitutional recognition; they coexist with the grant of judicial power. Broadly defined, they “consist of all powers reasonably required to enable a court to perform efficiently its judicial functions, to protect its dignity, independence and integrity, and to make its lawful actions effective. These powers are inherent in the sense that they exist because the court exists.” In other words, this authority flows from the powers possessed by a court simply because it is a court; it is an authority that inheres in the very nature of a judicial body and requires no grant of power other than that which creates the court and gives it jurisdiction. Verily, inherent powers are brought into existence by the grant of judicial power to the courts to in Section 1, Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution “to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.” As with other jurisdictions, “[t]he Constitution does not circumscribe the means that the courts may invoke on their own initiative to facilitate their exercise of judicial power. Thus, the courts may regularly apply their “inherent powers” to take some action that has not been specifically authorized by the Constitution, written rule, or statute.”
Upon posting bail, the accused subjects himself to the jurisdiction of the court and may validly be restricted in his movement and prohibited from leaving this jurisdiction. He cannot leave the country without the permission of the court where his case is pending. Remember that the grant of bail merely secures provisional or temporary liberty under conditions set by the court. The court may recall said grant and return the accused to detention should he violate the conditions for his temporary liberty or when reasons for the lifting of his bail arise. Thus, it is not entirely correct for the petitioner to argue that the issuance of HDOs amounted to an unreasonable restriction on her liberty of movement or right to travel. The truth of the matter is that she was already under restricted right to travel when she submitted to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by posting bail. The rule is that “a person facing a criminal indictment and provisionally released on bail does not have an unrestricted right to travel, the reason being that a person’s right to travel is subject to the usual constraints imposed by the very necessity of safeguarding the system of justice.”
The issuance of the HDO is a process complementary to the granting of bail since it puts the Bureau of Immigration on notice that a certain person is charged before the courts of law and must not be allowed to leave our jurisdiction without the permission of the court. After all, the granting of bail does not guaranty compliance by the accused of the conditions for his temporary liberty, particularly, his presence at every stage of the proceedings. Some, if not all, maybe tempted to jump bail and leave the country. This is what the HDO seeks to avoid by keeping the accused within the territory where court processes and dispositions may be enforced and implemented.
With the declaration of nullity of DOJ Circular No. 41 which stripped off the Secretary of Justice of self-imposed authority to issue HDOs, it becomes more imperative for the courts to use their inherent powers to prevent miscarriage of justice. It was in response to this need that A.M. No. 18-07-05-SC was issued. Specifically, it authorizes the issuance of a precautionary HDO even prior to the filing of an information in court when justified under the circumstances. This recognizes the fact that the processes leading to the filing of a case usually take a while before they are concluded such that by the time the information is filed in court, the accused may have already left the country and is now beyond the reach of courts. This renders futile the processes taken up prior to the filing of information and stalls the administration of justice until the accused is brought to the jurisdiction of the court. The issuance of a precautionary HDO cures this predicament.
It bears pointing out that, notwithstanding the issuance of HDOs, the petitioner is not absolutely prohibited from travelling abroad. She was only restricted from leaving the country as this would place her beyond the jurisdiction of our courts and might render nugatory the processes and proceedings being conducted in the cases against her. Nonetheless, she may, at any time, request for permission to travel abroad, citing grounds for its necessity. The Sandiganbayan, in numerous instances, had been liberal in granting permissions based on meritorious grounds, sometimes even for humanitarian considerations, for as long as certain conditions are complied with. Based on the records and allegations of the parties, however, there has yet an instance when the petitioner asked permission to travel from the Sandiganbayan and was denied of it.
In the present case, the investigating prosecutor of the OMB found probable cause to indict the petitioner for violation of Sections 3(e) and 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 and Article 220 of the Revise Penal Code, and his findings and recommendation to file the corresponding informations before the Sandiganbayan were approved by the Ombudsman. From the filing of information, the Sandiganbayan acquires jurisdiction over the case and the authority to control the conduct of the proceedings until its disposition. In Ocampo, the Court declared: [W]hile it is the Ombudsman who has the full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in the Sandiganbayan, once the case has been filed with said court, it is the Sandiganbayan, and no longer the Ombudsman, which has full control of the case so much so that the informations may not be dismissed without the approval of the said court.
Verily, “once jurisdiction attaches, it shall not be removed from the court until the termination of the case.” This was reiterated in Fuentes v. Sandiganbayan, 495 SCRA 784 (2006), in an enumeration of cases emphasizing this doctrine, viz.: As early as US v. Valencia, this Court, through Justice Charles A. Willard, ruled that once an Information has been filed in court, the latter acquires jurisdiction over the case; and, accordingly, it is the court, not the fiscal, which has control over it. In US v. Barredo, this Court explained that fiscals are not clothed with the power to dismiss or nolle prosequi criminal actions once these have been instituted, for the power to dismiss is solely vested in the court. The Barredo doctrine has continuously been applied through the years. In other words, once a court acquires jurisdiction, the same continues until the termination of the case. The rule, therefore, in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case, whether it be dismissal or the conviction or the acquittal of the accused, rests in the sound discretion of the court. The only qualification to this exercise of the judicial prerogative is that the substantial rights of the accused must not be impaired nor the People be deprived of the right to due process.
From the filing of information, any disposition of the case such as its dismissal or its continuation rests on the sound discretion of the court, which becomes the sole judge on what to do with the case before it. Pursuant to said authority, the court takes full authority over the case, including the manner of the conduct of litigation and resort to processes that will ensure the preservation of its jurisdiction. Thus, it may issue warrants of arrest, HDOs and other processes that it deems warranted under the circumstances.
In this case, the Sandiganbayan acted within its jurisdiction when it issued the HDOs against the petitioner. That the petitioner may seek reconsideration of the finding of probable cause against her by the OMB does not undermine nor suspend the jurisdiction already acquired by the Sandiganbayan. There was also no denial of due process since the petitioner was not precluded from filing a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of the OMB. In addition, the resolution of her motion for reconsideration before the OMB and the conduct of the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan may proceed concurrently. Moreover, the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman expressly provides that the filing of a motion of reconsideration does not prevent the filing of information. Section 7, Rule II of Administrative Order No. 07.
An information may be filed even before the lapse of the period to file a motion for reconsideration of the finding of probable cause. The investigating prosecutor need not wait until the resolution of the motion for reconsideration before filing the information with the Sandiganbayan especially that his findings and recommendation already carry the stamp of approval of the Ombudsman. In any case, the continuation of the proceedings is not dependent on the resolution of the motion for reconsideration by the investigating prosecutor. In the event that, after a review of the case, the investigating prosecutor was convinced that there is no sufficient evidence to warrant a belief that the accused committed the offense, his resolution will not result to the automatic dismissal of the case or withdrawal of information already filed before the Sandiganbayan. The matter will still depend on the sound discretion of the court. Having acquired jurisdiction over the case, the Sandiganbayan is not bound by such resolution but is required to evaluate it before proceeding further with the trial and should embody such assessment in the order disposing the motion.
Petition to lift a Hold Departure Order (HDO) issued by the Sec. of Justice should be filed in the court where criminal case against petitioner is pending. (Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, 606 SCRA 580 [2009])
DOJ Circular No. 38 (15 August 1990) pertains to Filipinos, not to foreigners, who opt to fly the coop to evade criminal prosecution. (Respicio vs. People, 650 SCRA 573 [2011])
Facts:
In 1970, Luis Balili obtained free patents over ten parcels of land in Naga, Cebu, and claimed an additional parcel of land in the same area. After Luis's death, his nephew Romeo Balili was appointed executor, and he engaged the services of several real estate brokers, including Lumen Durano, to sell the estate properties. In 2006, Durano learned that the Cebu Provincial Government was planning to establish an international seaport and offered to sell the Balili Estate to Juan Bolo, a member of Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cebu. Bolo then communicated the offer to the governor of Cebu, who instructed him to inquire about the selling price and have the property appraised. The Appraisal Committee headed by Engr. Anthony Sususco conducted an ocular inspection and appraised the property, and on July 10, 2007, Resolution No. 23 was issued, pegging the base unit market value of the property at P610.00 per sq m. Bolo subsequently authored Resolution No. 187-2008, authorizing the governor to execute and sign, for and on behalf of the Province of Cebu, the MOA for the sale of ten parcels of land composing the Balili Estate, with the purchase price set at P434.00 per sq m. On April 21, 2008, a MOA for the sale of eleven parcels of land, including the untitled lot being claimed by Luis, was executed at P400.00 per sq m, and the Province of Cebu tendered the first installment payment of P49,849,200.00 to Romeo as payee. On June 11, 2008, a Deed of Absolute Sale was executed, transferring the ownership of the eleven parcels of land to the Province of Cebu.
The controversial transaction of a property attracted media attention and prompted the provincial government to conduct a survey, which revealed that a significant portion of the property was submerged in water and a mangrove area. The Officer-in-Charge of the Cebu Provincial Legal Office demanded a reimbursement of P37,810,400.00 for the amount paid for the submerged and mangrove areas. The Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office – Visayas (PACPO-Visayas) conducted a fact-finding investigation and discovered that a substantial portion of the property was classified as timberland and underwater. The acquisition appropriation was also deemed irregular. As a result, the OMB-Visayas initiated the filing of criminal and administrative charges against the accountable public officials and employees. A Resolution by the OMB-Office of the Overall Deputy Ombudsman found probable cause to indict the governor for violating Sections 3(e) and 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019. The charges include violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, gross negligence, and grave misconduct. The Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict the governor of the Province of Cebu for violation of Sections 3(e) and 3(g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as well as technical malversation. The Sandiganbayan, a special court in the Philippines, issued hold departure orders against the governor and her co-accused. Criminal cases were filed against them for violation of Sections 3(e) and 3(g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as well as Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code.
On July 25, 2012, a Motion for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation was filed by a petitioner to have the case against her reinvestigated and reversed. The petitioner claimed that there was no prima facie evidence of actual injury or damage to the government for a valid prosecution of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and that the technical malversation was not committed. On September 4, 2012, the petitioner received a Notice of HDO, which she claimed violated her constitutional right to travel. In the ruling of the Sandiganbayan, it was determined that there was a valid judicial determination of probable cause against the petitioner, justifying the issuance of HDOs. On March 11, 2013, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to lift and set aside the HDOs in the Supreme Court.
Issue:
(1) WON the Sandiganbayan acted with grave of abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, when it issued the HDOs in the absence of any law, governmental regulation or guidelines authorizing its issuance. - NO
(2) WON the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it issued the HDOs without sufficient justification for curtailing the constitutionally-guaranteed right to travel. - NO
(3) WON the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it issued the HDOs despite a pending motion for reconsideration before the OMB. - NO
(1)
NO. The petitioner's argument lacks merit.
The petitioner argues that the absence of a law granting the Sandiganbayan the express authority to issue HDOs only translates to its lack of power to do so. She then referred to the SC Circular No. 39-97 which grants the power to issue HDOs to the RTCs and argues that the omission of the Sandiganbayan in the guidelines means that it does not have the authority to make such an issuance.
To further illustrate her point, she cites the Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 41 (DOJ Circular No. 41) which grants the Secretary of the DOJ the authority to issue HDOs and claims that the Sandiganbayan had not been given a similar authority.
(1.1)
It bears emphasizing that in Genuino v. De Lima, 861 SCRA 325 (2018), the Court already declared as unconstitutional DOJ Circular No. 41 on the ground that it has no legal basis and held, thus: x x x To begin with, there is no law particularly providing for the authority of the secretary of justice to curtail the exercise of the right to travel, in the interest of national security, public safety or public health. As it is, the only ground of the former DOJ Secretary in restraining the petitioners, at that time, was the pendency of the preliminary investigation of the Joint DOJ-COMELEC Preliminary Investigation Committee on the complaint for electoral sabotage against them. To be clear, DOJ Circular No. 41 is not a law. It is not a legislative enactment which underwent the scrutiny and concurrence of lawmakers, and submitted to the President for approval. It is a mere administrative issuance apparently designed to carry out the provisions of an enabling law which the former DOJ Secretary believed to be Executive Order (EO) No. 292, otherwise known as the “Administrative Code of 1987.” x x x x x x x x The questioned circular does not come under the inherent power of the executive department to adopt rules and regulations as clearly the issuance of HDO and WLO is not the DOJ’s business. As such, it is a compulsory requirement that there be an existing law, complete and sufficient in itself, conferring the expressed authority to the concerned agency to promulgate rules. On its own, the DOJ cannot make rules, its authority being confined to execution of laws. This is the import of the terms “when expressly provided by law” or “as may be provided by law” stated in Sections 7(4) and 7(9), Chapter 2, Title III, Book IV of E.O. 292. The DOJ is confined to filling in the gaps and the necessary details in carrying into effect the law as enacted. Without a clear mandate of an existing law, an administrative issuance is ultra vires. Consistent with the foregoing, there must be an enabling law from which DOJ Circular No. 41 must derive its life. Unfortunately, all of the supposed statutory authorities relied upon by the DOJ did not pass the completeness test and sufficient standard test. The DOJ miserably failed to establish the existence of the enabling law that will justify the issuance of the questioned circular. That DOJ Circular No. 41 was intended to aid the department in realizing its mandate only begs the question. The purpose, no matter how commendable, will not obliterate the lack of authority of the DOJ to issue the said issuance. Surely, the DOJ must have the best intentions in promulgating DOJ Circular No. 41, but the end will not justify the means. To sacrifice individual liberties because of a perceived good is disastrous to democracy.
In view of the foregoing, DOJ Circular No. 41 is no longer relevant in the present discussion.
(1.2)
On the other hand, SC Circular No. 39-97, admittedly, does not mention of Sandiganbayan. Following the argument of the petitioner, however, would mean that the issuance of HDO is a power pertaining to the RTCs alone, to the exclusion of all other courts. This is an inaccurate interpretation of the guidelines.
The rationale for the issuance of SC Circular No. 39-97 was "to avoid the indiscriminate issuance of HDO resulting in inconvenience to the parties affected, the same being tantamount to an infringement of the right and liberty of an individual to travel." It is in view of the perceived unnecessary impairment on the right to travel in certain instances that the guidelines for the issuance of HDOs were issued. It bears emphasis, however, that the circular was not meant to declare the RTC as the sole and exclusive authority in the issuance of HDOs. It only recognizes that the power exists in courts and, at the same time, seeks to temper its breadth by excluding criminal offenses cognizable by the first level courts, i.e. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. The Court elucidated on this point in Genuino v. De Lima,[56] thus:
Contrary to the understanding of the DOJ, the Court intentionally held that the issuance of HDOs shall pertain only to criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC, to the exclusion of criminal cases falling within the jurisdiction of the MTC and all other cases. The intention was made clear with the use of the term "only." The reason lies in seeking equilibrium between the state's interest over the prosecution of the case considering the gravity of the offense involved and the individual's exercise of his right to travel. Thus, the circular permits the intrusion on the right to travel only when the criminal case filed against the individual is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC, or those that pertains to more serious crimes or offenses that are punishable with imprisonment of more than six years. The exclusion of criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the MTC is justified by the fact that they pertain to less serious offenses which is not commensurate with the curtailment of a fundamental right. Much less is the reason to impose restraint on the right to travel of respondents of criminal cases still pending investigation since at that stage no information has yet been filed in court against them. It is for these reasons that Circular No. 39-97 mandated that HDO may only be issued in criminal cases filed with the RTC and withheld the same power from the MTC.[57]
That the Sandiganbayan was not mentioned in the circular only means it is given the full disposition of all the powers inherent in all courts of justice in order to effectuate the exercise of its jurisdiction, including the issuance of HDOs, if in its good judgment, it finds necessary in the administration of justice. It bears emphasizing that the Sandiganbayan is a special court tasked to hear and decide cases against public officers and employees and entrusted with the difficult task of policing and ridding the government ranks of the dishonest and corrupt. "The Constitution specifically made mention of the creation of this court precisely in response to a problem, the urgency of which cannot be denied, namely, dishonesty in the public service."[59] Confronted with the heavy responsibility of restoring "public office as a public trust,"[60] the Sandiganbayan will need all means within its powers in order to hold erring public officials accountable for their misdeeds.
(2)
No. The right to travel may be impaired, if necessary, in interest of national security, public safety or public health. Apart from the presence of these exclusive grounds, there is a further requirement that there must be a law authorizing the impairment. The requirement for a law ensures that the necessity for the impairment has undergone the validation and deliberation of Congress before its enactment. The strict requirement for the concurrence of these two elements are formidable enough to serve as safeguard in the full enjoyment of the right to travel.
At any rate, it bears pointing out that, notwithstanding the issuance of HDOs, the petitioner is not absolutely prohibited from travelling abroad. She was only restricted from leaving the country as this would place her beyond the jurisdiction of our courts and might render nugatory the processes and proceedings being conducted in the cases against her. Nonetheless, she may, at any time, request for permission to travel abroad, citing grounds for its necessity. The Sandiganbayan, in numerous instances, had been liberal in granting permissions based on meritorious grounds, sometimes even for humanitarian considerations, for as long as certain conditions are complied with. Based on the records and allegations of the parties, however, there has yet an instance when the petitioner asked permission to travel from the Sandiganbayan and was denied of it.
(3)
No. All told, the Sandiganbayan did not commit abuse of discretion, much less grave, in denying the motion for reconsideration and the prayer for the lifting of the HDOs issued against the petitioner. The HDOs were validly issued pursuant to its inherent powers as a court of justice.
In this case, the Sandiganbayan acted within its jurisdiction when it issued the HDOs against the petitioner. That the petitioner may seek reconsideration of the finding of probable cause against her by the OMB does not undermine nor suspend the jurisdiction already acquired by the Sandiganbayan. There was also no denial of due process since the petitioner was not precluded from filing a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of the OMB. In addition, the resolution of her motion for reconsideration before the OMB and the conduct of the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan may proceed concurrently. Moreover, the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman expressly provides that the filing of a motion of reconsideration does not prevent the filing of information. Section 7, Rule II of Administrative Order No. 07.
An information may be filed even before the lapse of the period to file a motion for reconsideration of the finding of probable cause. The investigating prosecutor need not wait until the resolution of the motion for reconsideration before filing the information with the Sandiganbayan especially that his findings and recommendation already carry the stamp of approval of the Ombudsman. In any case, the continuation of the proceedings is not dependent on the resolution of the motion for reconsideration by the investigating prosecutor. In the event that, after a review of the case, the investigating prosecutor was convinced that there is no sufficient evidence to warrant a belief that the accused committed the offense, his resolution will not result to the automatic dismissal of the case or withdrawal of information already filed before the Sandiganbayan. The matter will still depend on the sound discretion of the court. Having acquired jurisdiction over the case, the Sandiganbayan is not bound by such resolution but is required to evaluate it before proceeding further with the trial and should embody such assessment in the order disposing the motion.