G.R. No. 134307 , December 21, 1998
EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a 1990 complaint filed by the Office of the Solicitor General with the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) against Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr., former members of the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) Governing Board, and others for alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The charge stemmed from the alleged unauthorized donation of PCA funds amounting to Two Million Pesos to the private entity COCOFED. After this Court nullified the PCGG’s preliminary investigation, the case was transferred to the Office of the Ombudsman. Following a protracted review process addressing issues like a potential prejudicial question, an Information was finally filed with the Sandiganbayan on February 16, 1995, docketed as Criminal Case No. 22018.
The Sandiganbayan issued a warrant for Cojuangco’s arrest on February 17, 1995. He posted bail but filed an opposition to the warrant, arguing the Information was filed prematurely as he was not furnished a copy of the Ombudsman’s resolution, violating his right to a motion for reconsideration under Section 27 of R.A. 6770. He also contended the documents submitted for judicial determination of probable cause were inadequate. The Sandiganbayan subsequently barred him from leaving the country without court approval. Cojuangco then filed this petition for prohibition, seeking dismissal of the case and to lift the hold departure order, invoking violations of his right to due process and a speedy trial.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with Criminal Case No. 22018 despite the alleged denial of Cojuangco’s statutory right to file a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s resolution before the filing of the Information.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court ruled that the right to file a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s resolution is not an indispensable component of due process but a statutory privilege under Section 27 of R.A. 6770. The provision states that the accused “may” file such a motion, indicating it is discretionary and not mandatory. The Court emphasized that the primordial duty of the Ombudsman is to investigate and prosecute graft cases, and this function should not be hampered by stringent procedural requirements that could cause undue delay.
The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan in proceeding with the case. It held that the Ombudsman substantially complied with procedural requirements, and Cojuangco was not entirely deprived of an opportunity to challenge the finding of probable cause, as he could still do so during the trial or via a motion to quash. The right to a preliminary investigation is not a constitutional right but statutory, intended to prevent hasty prosecutions. Any irregularity was deemed cured when Cojuangco voluntarily posted bail. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan’s actions, including the issuance of the hold departure order to ensure the accused’s presence at trial, were within its jurisdiction and did not warrant the extraordinary writ of prohibition.