COJUANCO v SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. No. 134307 | December 21, 1998

Quisumbing, J.
Group 3 | Protacio

NATURE OF THE CASE
HOW DID THE CASE GET
TO SUPREME COURT?
[Procedural History]
Who filed the case?
Who won?
Petition for prohibition, under Sec. 2, Rule 65 seeking to
dismiss Criminal Case pending before the Sandiganbayan,
and to prohibit Sandiganbayan from further proceeding with
the case
- 1 year after criminal case was filed where petitioner was
already conditionally arraigned, new Special Prosecutor
reversed previous finding that there is probable cause –
now there is no probable cause
- Petitioner files urgent motion to dimiss
- Unresolved until it filed a 3rd motion to resolve its urgent
motion to dismiss
- Duly noted by SB
- Because of all the delays, this petition is filed.
Petitioner Eduardo Cojuanco
When Cojuanco succeeded in nullifying the warrant, case was
not dismissed because Sandiganbayan validly acquired
jurisdiction over his person when he posted bail

SHORT SUMMARY OF FACTS

- OSG filed a complaint before PCGG against Phil Cocounut Authority and its members,
including petitioner, for violation of RA 3019
o Charged for conspiring and confederating together and taking undue advantage
of their public positions during the Marcos regime, using PCA special funds
- Supreme Court ruled that all proceedings in the preliminary investigation conducted
by PCGG were null and void
o PCGG ordered to transmit its records to the Office of the Ombudsman
- In a Resolution, panel of investigators under Ombudsman recommended the filing of
an information for violation of RA 3019, Sec. 3e
o Office of Special Prosecutor affirmed the recommendation
- In a Memorandum from Special Prosecutor, it was resolved that no prejudicial question
exists
- Case filed with the Sandiganbayan which ordered the arrest of petitioner
o Petitioner had filed an opposition to issuance of Warrant of Arrest with Motion for
Leave to file MR of the Ombudsman Resolution
- Petitioner later posted bail, without prejudice to his earlier opposition
- Sandiganbayan barred petitioner from leaving the country, except upon approval of the
Court
- Petitioner filed memorandum in Amplification of Opposition to Issuance of Warrant
o Denied by the Sandiganbayan
- Petitioner was conditionally arraigned – plead not guilty
o To accommodate his request to travel, citing urgency of the lifting of travel
restriction in view of various problems involving his investments in San Miguel
Corporation
 o Subject to the condition that if petitioner is exonerated at the PI, the
arraignment is set aside
- Special Prosecutor(different guy than before) found no probable cause and
recommended dismissal of the case
o Approved by the Ombudsman
- Petitioner filed Urgent Motion to Dismiss with the Sandiganbayan
o Alleging that there is nothing on record which would warrant issuance of warrant
of arrest
- OSG, in representation of PCGG, filed MR of the recommendation of Special Prosecutor
- Sandiganbayan noted petitioner’s urgent motion to dismiss and has not yet acted upon
the other past motions, hence this petition

ISSUE
W/N Sandiganbayan could still exercise jurisdiction over the petitioner and proceed with trial –
YES

RATIO
- Sandiganbayan had the Resolution of the panel of investigators and the Memorandum of
the Office of the prosecutor to consider
o These were insufficient to support a finding of probable cause (because based
on our past topic, the judge cannot just rely on the determination of probable
cause of someone else)
o Hence, the warrant of arrest issued is invalid
- However, Sandiganbayan could still exercise jurisdiction and proceed with the trial
o Giving or posting of bail by the accused is tantamount to submission to the
jurisdiction of the court + filing of so many motions seeking affirmative
reliefs
- Petitioner invokes the Memorandum of the OSP (which was approved by OMB),
recommending dismissal of the case against him due to absence of probable cause
o Petitioner argues that this Memorandum is an integral part of the PI, and should
take precedence notwithstanding the fact that it was made after the filing of the
Information before the Sandiganbayan (citing Torralba v Sandiganbayan)
 To deny any efficacy to the finding of the OSP would be to negate the
right of petitioner to a PI
o Claims exception to rule laid down in Crespo v Mogul in making a distinction as
to who conducted the PI
 Crespo – Fiscal did the PI
 ITC – Special prosecutor did the PI
- In preliminary investigations conducted by the Office of the Special Prosecutor, the
respondent has the right to file an MR of any resolution within 5 days from receipt
of written notice and the right to file an MR within 15 days from notice of the
Resolution of the Ombudsman
o Until the MR is resolved, PI is not terminated, notwithstanding the filing of
information in court
- ITC – no copy of Resolution of the Office of the Special Prosecutor, which brought
about the filing of the Information, was served to petitioner
o When the Information was filed, the PI had not yet terminated
o Follows that the Resolution of the OSP resolving in petitioner’s favor the MR he
had filed was an integral part of the PI, not subject to review by the
Sandiganbayan
- Petitioner’s reliance on Torralba is not persuasive
 o In Torralba – petitioners were not given any chance to seek reconsideration from
Ombudsman’s final resolution, because they weren’t furnished with a copy of the
final resolution of the MB that could’ve enabled them to file an MR. Hence they
were deprived of their right to a full PI
- In this case at bar, the petitioner was able to file an MR of the Ombudsman’s
Resolution with leave of court
o In fact, his 2 motions for extensions to file the same were granted by the
respondent court
o This eventually paved the way for the filing of the subsequent Memorandum of
the OSP recommending dismissal of the case against him
o However, since the Information has already been filed before the
Sandiganbayan, the resolution of the aforesaid recommendation now lies within
the jurisdiction and discretion of the Sandiganbayan
- Clearly consistent with the rule in Crespo v Mogul, after the filing of the information in
court, any disposition of the case as to its dismissal/conviction/acquittal rests in the
sound discretion of the court

RULING
Petition is dismissed insofar as the dismissal of the Criminal Case. Sandiganbayan is to
proceed with the resolution of the pending motions and the incidents in Criminal Case with
utmost dispatch. The resolution imposing a ban on petitioner’s travel abroad without its prior
approval pending the Criminal Case is lifted.