ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 141336. January 31, 2000]

RODOLFO G. VALENCIA, et al. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 31 2000.

G.R. No. 141336 (Rodolfo G. Valencia et al. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.)

Petitioners are former officials of the Province of Oriental Mindoro, except Rodolfo G. Valencia who remains Governor and Alfonso Umali, Jr. They were charged before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Section 3(e) in relation to Section 3(g) of RA 3019, docketed as Criminal Case No. 23624, for having entered into a grossly disadvantageous contract of loan involving provincial funds of Oriental Mindoro with a certain Alfredo M. Atienza to finance the repairs, operations and maintenance of the latter's vessel.

On April 4, 1997, petitioners filed a Motion to Quash Information and Motion to Allow Accused to file Motion for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation. Respondent Ombudsman, in his Comment, manifested that the Motion to Quash was premature but interposed no objection to the Motion for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation. On March 23, 1998, respondent Ombudsman/Special Prosecutor denied the Motion for Reinvestigation. However, two of the four prosecutors, namely, Deputy Robert Kallos and Special Prosecutor Leonardo Tamayo, recommended the dismissal of the case against all petitioners on the ground that the act complained of was not criminal in nature. Petitioners filed with the Sandiganbayan a Motion for Leave to file Motion for Reconsideration of the March 23, 1998 Resolution. The Sandiganbayan denied this on June 23, 1999.

In the meantime, respondent Ombudsman in a Decision dated December 1, 1998, absolved petitioners in the administrative case against them, OMB-ADM-1-96-0316, which involved the same subject matter as the aforesaid criminal case.

On July 6, 1999, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the June 23, 1999 Order of the Sandiganbayan and motion to Resolve their Motion to Quash Information. They invoked the dismissal by the Ombudsman of the administrative case against them. These motions were denied by the Sandiganbayan in a Resolution dated September 27, 1999.

On October 19, 1999, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Defer Arraignment and Pre-trial. The Sandiganbayan granted the Motion to Defer Arraignment and Pre-trial scheduled on November 9, 1999. However, on January 10, 2000, the Sandiganbayan denied the Motion for Reconsideration, on the ground that the same was actually a second Motion for Reconsideration which is prohibited under Rule 125, Section 16 of the Rules of Court. Hence, the Sandiganbayan set the arraignment of petitioners on January 21, 2000 at 8:30 a.m.

Petitioners are now before this Court on a special civil action for certiorari with a prayer to enjoin respondent Sandiganbayan from proceeding with their arraignment in Criminal Case No. 23624.

In the leading case of Crespo v. Mogul (151 SCRA 462 [1987]), this Court held that once a complaint or information is filled in Court, any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court (supra, at p. 471). By the same token, the Sandiganbayan in this case has the sole discretion and prerogative to determine what to do with it. Inasmuch as there is no showing that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion, this Court will not interfere with its actions.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED for failure to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent Sandiganbayan.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE