GR 118813; (April, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 118813 -14. April 8, 1997
Hon. Conrado M. Vasquez, Ombudsman, petitioner, vs. Hon. Marietta Hobilla-Alinio, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Corazon Odelmo filed a murder complaint with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas against respondents, including a municipal mayor and others, for the killing of her husband and father-in-law. After preliminary investigation, the Deputy Ombudsman found probable cause and recommended filing an Information for double murder with the Sandiganbayan. However, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), upon review, found the crimes were not committed in relation to public office and recommended filing two separate Informations with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bago City. The Ombudsman approved this modified resolution.
The Ombudsman filed the two Informations with the RTC, which issued warrants of arrest. Respondents immediately moved to recall the warrants and to quash the Informations. They argued they were not furnished a copy of the OSP’s resolution as required by the Ombudsman’s rules, depriving them of their right to seek reconsideration. They also contended the Ombudsman lacked authority to file the cases since it found the acts were not office-related.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion to quash the Informations.
RULING
Yes, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court ruled for the petitioner Ombudsman. Under Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, the failure to furnish a copy of a resolution is not a valid ground to quash an information. While respondents’ claim that the Ombudsman lacked authority to file the Informations could theoretically fall under a valid ground (lack of authority by the filing officer), it was inappropriate to quash on that basis here. The core procedural flaw was the premature filing of the Informations before respondents were served the resolution, which denied them their right to seek reconsideration under the Ombudsman’s own rules.
The Court applied the doctrine from Torralba v. Sandiganbayan, which held that deficiencies in the preliminary investigation, such as failure to furnish a copy of the resolution, do not warrant the quashal of an information or affect the court’s jurisdiction. The proper remedy is to remand the case to the Ombudsman to complete the proceedings by furnishing the required copy and resolving any subsequent motion for reconsideration. The trial court’s order quashing the Informations was therefore set aside. The cases were ordered remanded to the Ombudsman to complete the preliminary investigation process, after which the results would be endorsed to the RTC for appropriate action.