GR 130576; (May, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 130576 May 18, 1999
CONRADO G. AVILA, SR., petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION, and THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Conrado G. Avila, Sr., then Municipal Mayor of San Isidro, Northern Samar, was charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Information alleged that on February 15, 1996, with deliberate intent, manifest partiality, and evident bad faith, he intervened to prevent DENR forest rangers from confiscating 160 pieces of illegally cut lumber, thereby giving unwarranted benefits to himself to the damage and prejudice of the government.
Avila filed a motion for reinvestigation, arguing that the charge in the original complaint subject to preliminary investigation was for direct assault, not for violation of R.A. 3019, and that there was no evidence to support a finding of probable cause for the graft charge. The Sandiganbayan denied his motion, prompting Avila to file this special civil action for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for reinvestigation, given the alleged lack of prima facie evidence to support the charge for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the Sandiganbayan’s resolution. The Court clarified that there is no inherent irregularity in filing an indictment for an offense different from that in the initiatory complaint if warranted by the evidence, citing Enrile vs. Salazar. However, the Court found no sufficient prima facie evidence to prosecute Avila for violation of R.A. 3019, Section 3(e).
The Court, applying Pecho vs. Sandiganbayan, emphasized that the element of “causing undue injury” requires proof of actual injury or damage. The records showed that the confiscated lumber was officially deposited under the care of the Barangay Chairman, per his request. This act was proper and did not constitute giving unwarranted benefits or causing damage to the government. Since the prosecution failed to substantiate an essential element of the offense—actual injury—no probable cause existed. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion for reinvestigation. The Court directed the dismissal of the criminal case.