G.R. No. 128764 July 10, 1998
BIENVENIDO TAN, JR., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Bienvenido Tan, Jr., then Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), was charged before the Sandiganbayan with violations of Section 3(e) and (g) of the Anti-Graft law (R.A. 3019) under an Information dated May 19, 1994. The Information alleged that on or about December 22, 1988, petitioner, conspiring and confederating with other BIR officials and private individuals from San Miguel Corporation, through evident bad faith and manifest partiality, caused undue injury to the Government by effecting a compromise of San Miguel Corporation’s tax liabilities amounting to P302,951,048.93 for only P10,000,000.00, which was grossly disadvantageous to the Government. After arraignment, all accused filed a motion for reinvestigation, which was granted. Upon reinvestigation, the Special Prosecutor found no sufficient probable cause against petitioner’s co-accused and moved to drop the charges against them, which motion the Sandiganbayan granted in a Resolution dated November 27, 1995. Almost a year later, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss (treated as a motion to quash) the Information, arguing that with the finding of no conspiracy and the dismissal of charges against his co-accused, the allegation of conspiracy in the Information had no more basis, and he could not be charged alone under a conspiracy theory. The Sandiganbayan denied his motion. Without filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss (quash) the Information.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan. The Court held that:
1. The special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 will not lie as petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration, which is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, and the case does not fall under any recognized exception. Furthermore, an order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory and not appealable, nor can it be the subject of certiorari, unless the denial constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
2. The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion because:
a. The Information is valid. It alleges all material facts and essential elements constituting the crimes under Section 3(e) and (g) of R.A. 3019. Conspiracy is not an element of these crimes; its allegation was merely to show how criminal liability was incurred. The subsequent dismissal of charges against co-accused based on the non-existence of conspiracy did not render the Information defective as to petitioner, who remains charged and may be tried and convicted. The allegation of conspiracy became mere surplusage.
b. Petitioner’s argument that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion by granting the prayer for reinvestigation after arraignment is untenable, as it was petitioner himself who prayed for reinvestigation.
c. Petitioner’s claim of potential double jeopardy if the Information were amended is premature, as no amendment was made. In any case, the original and amended informations would constitute one continuous trial for one offense, and the dismissal of charges against co-accused is not equivalent to petitioner’s acquittal.
d. The prosecution has discretion on who to charge based on its assessment of the evidence. The Court cannot interfere with the Ombudsman’s constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutory powers.
e. The motion to quash was filed too late (almost a year after reinvestigation and after arraignment), and the grounds raised (non-inclusion of other accused) are deemed waived, as they are not among the grounds that survive a waiver under Section 8, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court.
f. Petitioner’s defense that he merely relied on his subordinates’ recommendations is a matter of defense that cannot be raised in a motion to quash.