ROMAN A. CRUZ, JR., vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division), and OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 110436
- Promulgated: 1994-06-27
- Ponente: Regalado, J.
Doctrine
A preliminary investigation is a judicial proceeding subject to substantive and procedural due process because the prosecutor acts in a quasi-judicial capacity; it is a realistic judicial appraisal to determine whether an information may be prepared.
Findings of fact by the Ombudsman based on the preliminary investigation, when supported by substantial evidence, are essentially factual and conclusive; challenges thereto raise questions of fact not reviewable in certiorari for lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Records of preliminary investigation do not form part of the Regional Trial Court record but may be ordered produced by the court when necessary; similarly, production before an adjudicating body should be on sufficient justification and at the proper juncture.
Facts
Petitioner sought relief by certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to reverse Sandiganbayan Orders of 17 February 1993 and 12 May 1993 denying his Omnibus Motion and Motion for Reconsideration in Criminal Case No. 14252.
The Ombudsman had found sufficient ground to believe petitioner guilty of estafa through falsification of public documents, adopting findings of Prosecutor Tamayo in an Order dated 11 February 1992 based on evidence presented during preliminary investigation.
The Ombudsman�s factual findings were supported by the records and deemed essentially factual, making petitioner�s attack one on facts rather than jurisdiction or law.
The Court affirmed the appealed resolutions but directed the Ombudsman to produce pertinent records of the preliminary investigation before the Sandiganbayan at the proper juncture and upon sufficient justification.
Issues
Whether the Ombudsman and the investigating prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause against petitioner after the preliminary investigation.
Whether the Court should review the Ombudsman�s factual findings resolving the existence of probable cause.
Ruling
The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan and Ombudsman resolutions denying petitioner�s motions, holding that the Ombudsman�s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and thus conclusive; petitioner�s challenges raised questions of fact not cognizable in certiorari for grave abuse of discretion.
The Court modified the disposition by directing the Ombudsman to produce the records of the preliminary investigation before the Sandiganbayan at the proper juncture and upon sufficient justification.
Keywords
G.R. No. 110436, certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, Criminal Case No. 14252, Omnibus Motion, Motion for Reconsideration, Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, preliminary investigation, Information, Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents, Articles 171 and 315 of the Revised Penal Code, Criminal Case No. 14134, Cojuangco, Jr. vs. PCGG, et al., G.R. Nos. 92319-20, October 2, 1990, grave abuse of discretion, due process, falsification of public documents, public official, offense in relation to his office, ombudsman