GR 94595; (February, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 94595; February 26, 1991
ROMAN CRUZ, JR., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and the HONORABLE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, respondents.
FACTS
The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) filed an information with the Sandiganbayan charging Roman Cruz, Jr., then President and General Manager of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), and others with violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The charge stemmed from the 1983 sale of GSIS bonds to Cor-Asia at a 40% discount, which were allegedly resold days later to COMBANK at only a 12% discount, causing government prejudice. The PCGG conducted a preliminary investigation and filed the information, later amending it to allege that Cruz was a “subordinate and close associate” of former President Ferdinand Marcos. Cruz moved to quash, arguing the PCGG lacked authority to investigate and prosecute the case.
ISSUE
Whether the PCGG had the legal authority to conduct a preliminary investigation and file the information against Roman Cruz, Jr. for the alleged graft offense.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the PCGG lacked the requisite authority, rendering its actions null and void. The Court clarified that under its enabling laws, the PCGG’s jurisdiction is limited to two specific categories: (1) the investigation and prosecution of cases involving the recovery of ill-gotten wealth from the Marcos family, relatives, subordinates, and close associates, as defined under Section 2(a) of Executive Order No. 1; and (2) such other cases as the President may specifically assign to it under Section 2(b). The charge against Cruz was for a straightforward violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft Law). The amended information’s attempt to characterize the act as a “crony-related crime” was an unsupported afterthought, as the complaint and supporting affidavits contained no evidence linking the transaction to ill-gotten wealth accumulation in concert with Marcos or as a result of cronyism. The President had also not assigned this specific case to the PCGG. Consequently, the PCGG acted without jurisdiction. A void information cannot be cured by amendment; a proper preliminary investigation must be conducted by the appropriate agency. The case was dismissed and referred to the Ombudsman, which holds primary jurisdiction over such graft charges.