G.R. No. 161602; July 13, 2010
ALFREDO T. ROMUALDEZ, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) and THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

The Republic filed a forfeiture case under R.A. 1379 against Alfredo T. Romualdez and others (the Romualdezes) before the Sandiganbayan in 1996. The Romualdezes moved to dismiss the case on several grounds, including prematurity, arguing that the Ombudsman failed to conduct the required preliminary investigation before filing the petition. The Sandiganbayan denied their motion and subsequent motions for reconsideration.
The Romualdezes then filed a motion for preliminary investigation and to suspend proceedings, insisting that a valid preliminary investigation, akin to that in criminal cases, is a jurisdictional prerequisite under Section 2 of R.A. 1379. They argued the Ombudsman lacked authority to investigate wealth amassed before February 25, 1986, and that they were denied due process as they were abroad during the 1991 investigation. The Sandiganbayan denied this motion, prompting this petition for certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUE

Whether the preliminary investigation conducted by the Ombudsman in 1991 satisfied the legal requirement for the forfeiture case to proceed.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative, upholding the validity of the preliminary investigation and denying the petition. The legal logic is twofold. First, on the Ombudsman’s authority, the Court clarified that while the Ombudsman’s power to initiate forfeiture cases is restricted to ill-gotten wealth amassed after February 25, 1986, its general investigatory power under Section 15(1) of R.A. 6770 extends to investigating such wealth acquired even before that date. The investigation in OMB-0-91-0820 was thus valid, and the subsequent filing by the Office of the Solicitor General was proper.
Second, on the claim of denial of due process, the Court found no merit. The Romualdezes admitted the subpoena was sent to their last known address. Their absence, attributed to self-exile after the 1986 EDSA revolution, was not a valid excuse by 1991, as political normalcy had been restored with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution. The Ombudsman was justified in proceeding ex parte after notice. The law does not require the respondent’s physical presence in a preliminary investigation, only that efforts to reach them were made and an opportunity to controvert evidence was afforded, which was satisfied here. Consequently, the forfeiture proceedings before the Sandiganbayan may continue.