GR 101202; (March, 1993) (Digest)

G.R. No. 101202 and G.R. No. 102554. March 8, 1993.
RAMON A. DIAZ, petitioner, vs. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division), HON. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, in his capacity as Ombudsman, and JOSE J. PARENTELA, JR., in his capacity as Prosecutor, Office of the Special Prosecutor, respondents. [and] RAMON A. DIAZ, petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN (Second Division), HON. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, in his capacity as Ombudsman, HON. MANUEL C. DOMINGO, in his capacity as Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ramon A. Diaz was the Chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). In 1988, Solicitor General Frank Chavez, then counsel for the PCGG in a Supreme Court case, filed a pleading accusing Chairman Diaz of lifting the sequestration on American Inter-fashion. Chavez later held a press conference accusing Diaz of corruption and ineptness, withdrew as PCGG counsel, and Diaz resigned as PCGG chairman. President Aquino ordered an investigation, and the Ombudsman also directed an investigation. The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, jointly with an Ombudsman panel, conducted a fact-finding investigation where Chavez presented evidence under oath. The Senate Committee eventually dismissed all charges. However, Special Prosecutor Jose J. Parentela, Jr., with the Ombudsman’s approval, found probable cause and conducted a preliminary investigation. Parentela recommended the filing of informations in the Sandiganbayan for violations of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, specifically concerning transactions involving Glorious Sun (related to American Inter-Fashion and De Soleil) and a loan from Metro Port Service, Inc. to Enrique Razon, Jr. Petitioner Diaz moved to quash the informations, arguing the preliminary investigation was void because it was conducted by the same persons who gathered evidence and that Chavez’s charges were not in writing or under oath.

ISSUE

1. Whether the preliminary investigation conducted by Special Prosecutor Parentela was null and void for allegedly violating the procedure in Section 3, Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure and the doctrine in Cojuangco vs. PCGG, as the same persons who gathered evidence conducted the investigation.
2. Whether the preliminary investigation was invalid because the charges by Chavez were not made in writing or under oath.

RULING

1. The preliminary investigation was valid. The Sandiganbayan found it substantially complied with Section 3, Rule 112. The Court distinguished this case from Cojuangco vs. PCGG. In Cojuangco, the complainant and investigating officer were the same entity (PCGG). Here, the complainant was Frank Chavez, and the investigating body was the Office of the Ombudsman/Special Prosecutor. Prosecutor Parentela did not “gather” evidence for Chavez; he and his colleague merely received the evidence presented by Chavez and evaluated it to determine if a prima facie case existed. Parentela was not the accuser and investigator rolled into one. Therefore, there was no denial of due process, and both the preliminary investigation and the filed informations are valid.
2. The preliminary investigation was not invalid due to the form of the complaint. The charges by Chavez were substantiated in his sworn pleadings in the Supreme Court case (American Inter-fashion Corp., et al. vs. PCGG) and his sworn testimony before the joint Senate and Ombudsman investigation. The 1987 Constitution (Section 12, Article XI) and the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman (Administrative Order No. 07, Section 3, Rule I) allow the Ombudsman to act on complaints “filed in any form or manner,” even if not in the usual form. A sworn testimony provides a sufficient basis for investigation.
The petitions for certiorari and prohibition were DENIED for lack of merit.