G.R. Nos. 111771-77. November 9, 1993.
ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ, petitioner, vs. The Honorable HARRIET O. DEMETRIOU (in her capacity as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, NCR, Branch 70, Pasig), The Honorable FRANKLIN DRILON (in his capacity as Secretary of Justice), JOVENCITO R. ZUÑO, LEONARDO C. GUIYAB, CARLOS L. DE LEON, RAMONCITO C. MISON, REYNALDO J. LUGTU, and RODRIGO P. LORENZO, the last six respondents in their official capacities as members of the State Prosecutor’s Office), respondents.

FACTS

On July 28, 1993, the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission requested the filing of charges against several persons, including petitioner Mayor Antonio L. Sanchez of Calauan, Laguna, in connection with the rape-slay of Mary Eileen Sarmenta and the killing of Allan Gomez. A Panel of State Prosecutors from the Department of Justice conducted a preliminary investigation on August 9, 1993, where Sanchez’s counsel, Atty. Marciano Brion, Jr., was present. Counsel manifested that after reviewing the statements, “there is nothing to rebut” and expressly waived the submission of a counter-affidavit unless new witnesses appeared. On August 12, 1993, Sanchez was invited for investigation and taken to Camp Vicente Lim on August 13, where he was positively identified by witnesses Aurelio Centeno and SPO3 Vivencio Malabanan, who executed confessions implicating him. He was placed on “arrest status” and taken to the Department of Justice for an inquest, represented by Atty. Salvador Panelo. A warrant of arrest was served on Sanchez on August 13, 1993, issued by Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas for violation of R.A. No. 6713 . On August 16, 1993, seven informations for rape with homicide were filed against Sanchez and others with the RTC of Calamba, Laguna. The venue was later transferred to Pasig, Metro Manila, and raffled to respondent Judge Harriet Demetriou. The informations were amended on September 10, 1993, to include the killing of Allan Gomez as an aggravating circumstance. Sanchez filed a motion to quash the informations, which was denied on September 13, 1993, prompting the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash the informations based on the grounds that: 1) Sanchez was denied the right to present evidence at the preliminary investigation; 2) only the Ombudsman had competence to conduct the investigation; 3) his warrantless arrest was illegal, thus the court did not acquire jurisdiction over him; 4) he is being charged with seven homicides arising from the death of only two persons; 5) the informations are discriminatory for not including Teofilo Alqueza and Edgardo Lavadia; and 6) as a public officer, he can be tried only by the Sandiganbayan.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and directed the respondent judge to continue with the trial of the criminal cases.
1. On the Preliminary Investigation: The records show Sanchez was not denied the right to present evidence. His counsel, Atty. Brion, explicitly waived the submission of a counter-affidavit during the August 9 hearing, stating there was “nothing to rebut.” During the inquest on August 13, his counsel Atty. Panelo was furnished with witness statements and again waived the submission of a counter-affidavit. The Court held that the right to present counter-affidavits can be waived. Furthermore, the absence or flaw in a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the information, affect the court’s jurisdiction, or constitute a ground for quashing it; the remedy is to move for an investigation or reinvestigation, which the trial court saw no need for.
2. On the Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman: The authority of the Ombudsman to investigate public officials under R.A. 6770 is not exclusive but concurrent with other agencies like the Department of Justice. The non-involvement of the Ombudsman does not invalidate the authority of the state prosecutors to file and prosecute the information.
3. On the Legality of the Arrest: The Court found the arrest legal. Sanchez was validly arrested pursuant to a warrant issued on August 13, 1993, by Judge Lanzanas. Any question regarding a possible earlier warrantless arrest was rendered moot by the subsequent service of a valid warrant. The legality of an arrest affects only the custody of the person, not the jurisdiction of the court, which is acquired upon the filing of the information.
4. On the Number of Informations: The seven informations correspond to the seven different acts of rape allegedly committed against the victim before she was killed. Each act of rape constitutes a separate crime, and the resulting homicide is integrated into each rape charge as a single complex crime. Therefore, charging seven complex crimes of rape with homicide is proper.
5. On Discriminatory Prosecution: The mere non-inclusion of two other alleged participants (Alqueza and Lavadia) does not constitute a violation of equal protection. The discretion to prosecute lies with the executive branch, and the petitioner failed to prove that the prosecution was deliberately based on an unjust standard.
6. On Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan: The crimes charged (rape with homicide) are not included in the enumeration of offenses over which the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction under the applicable law (P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. 7975). The Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction is limited to specific offenses committed by public officers in relation to their office. Rape with homicide is not among these, regardless of the offender’s position. Jurisdiction lies with the regular courts.