G.R. No. 138859-60 February 22, 2001
ALVAREZ ARO YUSOP, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division), respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Alvarez Aro Yusop was charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 3019 (Criminal Case No. 24524) and unlawful arrest under Article 269 of the Revised Penal Code (Criminal Case No. 24525). The charges stemmed from an Affidavit-Complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao. Notably, while the Ombudsman’s initial order named several respondents, petitioner’s name was not included. However, in the subsequent Resolution recommending prosecution, petitioner was named as one of the accused despite not being an original respondent and not having been notified to submit a counter-affidavit. Upon the filing of the Informations, petitioner moved to remand the case for preliminary investigation, arguing he was denied this right. The Sandiganbayan denied his motions, primarily on the ground that he had not properly submitted to its jurisdiction, and proceeded with his arraignment, entering a plea of not guilty on his behalf.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with petitioner’s arraignment despite being informed of the lack of a preliminary investigation concerning him in Criminal Case No. 24524.

RULING

Yes, the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that petitioner was entitled to a preliminary investigation for the offense in Criminal Case No. 24524, as it charged a violation of R.A. No. 3019 punishable by imprisonment exceeding six years. The right to a preliminary investigation is a substantive right, and its denial cannot be cured by a claim of waiver based on procedural technicalities like the manner of submitting to the court’s jurisdiction. The Ombudsman’s failure to notify petitioner and include him in the preliminary investigation stage was a fatal defect. However, the Court clarified that the denial of this right does not warrant the dismissal of the information. The proper remedy is to suspend the proceedings and remand the case to the Ombudsman to conduct the requisite preliminary investigation. The Sandiganbayan’s act of compelling arraignment under these circumstances was a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to grave abuse of discretion. Consequently, the Court granted the petition in part, nullified the Sandiganbayan’s orders, and directed the conduct of a preliminary investigation for petitioner in Criminal Case No. 24524.