G.R. No. 136082 May 12, 2000
Franklin P. Bautista, petitioner, vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), Office of the Ombudsman and People of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

An anonymous, unverified, and unsigned letter-complaint charged petitioner Franklin P. Bautista, the incumbent Mayor of Malita, Davao del Sur, with violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The complaint alleged he hired 192 casual employees for political considerations and charged their honoraria and salaries to the peace and order fund despite the municipality’s meager savings. Acting on this letter, the Office of the Ombudsman directed petitioner to submit a counter-affidavit. Petitioner complied, arguing the complaint was fictitious and attaching affidavits from alleged association officers disclaiming knowledge of the complaint. The Ombudsman found probable cause and filed an Information before the Sandiganbayan.
Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information, arguing the acts charged did not constitute a violation of R.A. 3019 and that more than one offense was charged. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion, ruling the Information sufficiently alleged all elements of the crime. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to Quash, particularly on the ground that the Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation was void for not first requiring the complainants to submit sworn affidavits before directing the respondent to file his counter-affidavit.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions. The Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. On the procedural issue, the Court ruled that while the Ombudsman’s rules require complainants to submit affidavits before a respondent is required to file a counter-affidavit, this rule is not inflexible. The Ombudsman has the discretion to initiate a preliminary investigation based on an anonymous complaint. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is merely to determine probable cause, not to decide guilt. The Ombudsman validly acquired jurisdiction over the case upon receiving the complaint. Any procedural irregularity was cured when petitioner voluntarily submitted his counter-affidavit and participated in the proceedings without raising the objection at the earliest opportunity. The Court emphasized that a motion to quash is limited to the face of the Information, and the alleged defect in the preliminary investigation is not a ground for quashing the Information itself, as it does not affect the court’s jurisdiction over the case. The Information validly alleged all the elements of a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.