EDUARDO COJUANGCO V. SANDIGANBAYAN ombudsman on February 10, 1995.

Criminal case 22018 was filed with the SB and February

• Petition seeks to dismiss Criminal Case No. 22018 raffled to the first division 16, 1995
entitled “PP v. Eduardo M. Conjuangco, Jr., et al.” Petitioner filed with respondent court an February
pending before the respondent SB (First Opposition to Issuance of Warrant of Arrest with 19, 1995
Division) and to prohibit said court from further Motion for Leave to File Motion for
Reconsideration of Ombudsman Resolutions
proceeding with the case.
• Prays for the issuance of a TRO or PI enjoining Petitioner alleged that since the only documents
SB1 from enforcing its order which bans petitioner attached to the Information and submitted to
from leaving the country except upon prior approval respondent Sandiganbayan were the June 2, 1992
Resolution of the panel investigators and the
by said court. January 16, 1995 memorandum of the office of the
Special Prosecutor, the same were not adequate for
FACTS: the determination of probable cause for the issuance of
a warrant of arrest by SB.
• This is an offshoot of a complaint filed on January
12, 1990 by the OSG before the Presidential Petitioner avers that the filing of the information was
Commission on Good Government (PCGC) against premature considering that he was not furnished a
former Administrator of the Philippine Coconut copy of the Ombudsman’s Resolution and prays that
he be given leave to file a motion for reconsideration of
Authority and the former members of its governing the Ombudsman’s Resolution and the OSP’s Memo.
board, petitioner among them, for violation of RA Petitioner posted bail and likewise filed a February 22,
3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Manifestation stating that he was posting bail 1995
• Respondents were charged for having conspired without prejudice to the Opposition to Issuance of
Warrant of Arrest with Motion for Leave to File a
and taking undue advantage of their public positions Motion for Reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s
with the former President Ferdinand E. Marcos and Resolution.
former First Lady, Imelda Romualdez-Marcos SB barred petitioner from leaving the country February 20,
without authority granted a donation in the amount except upon approval of the court. 1995
Petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration March 28,
of P2M to the Philipine Coconut Produces
1995
Federation (COCOFED), a private entity, using PCA SB denied April 3, 1995
Special fund, giving COCOFED unwarranted Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the reso April 7, 1995
benefits, advantage and preference. dated April 3
• However, this court ruled that all the proceedings in Petitioner was conditionally arraigned pleading not May 25,
guilty. The arraignment was undertaken to 1995
the preliminary investigation conducted by the accommodate the petitioner in his request to travel
PCGG were null and void and was directed to pending the determination of probable cause.
transmit the complaints and records to the Office of Arraignment is subject to the condition that if petitioner
the Ombudsman. is exonerated at the preliminary investigation, such is
set aside. OTOH, should there be a cause,
• In June 2, 1992, the panel of investigators arraignment will not serve as basis for the invocation of
recommended the filing of an Information for the right against double jeopardy.
violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 against SPO Victorio U. Tabanguil found no probable October 22,
petitioner and five other respondents. cause and recommended the dismissal of the case. 1995
Recommendation for dismissal was approved by November
the Honorable Ombudsman. 15, 1996
Timeline of incidents ! SPO Tabanguil filed a Manifestation attaching the December 6,
June 2, 1992 resolution was referred by Assistant memo for reconsideration. 1996
Ombudsman Abelardo L. Aportadera, Jr. to the Petitioner filed the FIRST Urgent Motion to Dismiss December
Office of the Special Prosecutor for review alleging that with the reversal of the earlier findings of 13, 1996
Office of the SP affirmed the recommendation July 15, the Ombudsman of probable cause, there was nothing
1992 that would warrant SB to issue the warrant of arrest
Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez ordered the August 19, OSG, representing PCGG, filed with the OSP a December
panel of investigators to discuss the merits of the 1992 motion for reconsideration of the Memo dated 23, 1996
prejudicial question October 22
Panel of investigators found that the Civil Case does November SPO Tabanguil merely noted the motion for January 6,
not pose a prejudicial question which will warrant 18, 1992 reconsideration 1997
the suspension of the filing of the criminal case Petitioner filed a Motion to Strike Out Alternatively, January, 13,
Memo was received by assistant ombudsman Opposition to Complainant’s Motion for 1997
Abelardo L. Aportadera on December 1 and submitted Reconsideration Dated Dec23
his comment on December 16, 1992 to Ombudsman SB ordered the prosecution to justify the relationship January 9,
Vasquez that may be established with respect to the COCOFED 1997
Ombudsman Vasquez ordered the panel of December on one hand and the PCA, as a basis for justifying the
investigators to go to the specifics 23, 1992 position of the prosecution in this case.
Panel of investigators recommended that the motion to December 1, SB ordered the PCGG lawyers to “present themselves” February 4,
suspend proceedings be granted 1993 and to respond to the claim of the OSG. It is the 1997
Ombudsman Vasquez referred for comment to the December 3, function of the court to determine the existence of
Office of the Special Prosecutor the Memo 1992 probable cause and the propriety of the withdrawal of
SPO Daniel B. Jovacon, Jr. resolved that no prejudicial January 16, the information to be assured that the evidence for the
question exists to warrant the suspension of the 1995 complainant has been properly presented or the
criminal proceedings which recommendation was accused is properly protected.
approved by then Ombudsman on January 26, 1995. Petitioner filed a SECOND Motion to Resolve the December
The information was forwarded to the office of the Urgent Motion to Dismiss 12, 1996

Criminal Procedure | Atty. Galeon | A.Y. 2020 – 2021 | AGregorio

Motion to Strike out July 3, 1997 Restraining Order or Writ of Preliminary Injunction"
PCGG filed an opposition July 16, Enjoining Enforcement of Respondent Sandiganbayan's
1997
Petitioner filed a reply to the opposition July 18,
Order (Hold Departure Order) with an alternative prayer
1997 to travel abroad within a period of six (6) months.
PCGG filed a rejoinder July 31,
1997 Court noted the aforesaid motion and directed
THIRD Motion to resolve the Urgent Motion to January 23, petitioner that in the meanwhile, he may address his
dismiss 1998
SB duly noted the motion. January 26, request for permission to travel abroad to the
1998 Sandiganbayan.

Petitioner’s prayers and arguments SC: Petitioner filed a Motion for reconsideration and argued
August 5, 1998 that “this defeats the purpose of the petition because
Application for Temporary Restraining Order and/or petitioner has precisely come to the Supreme Court to
writ of PI with Urgent Motion for Hearing citing the obtain relief from an oppressive regime of authorization
urgency of lifting the travel restriction on him in view of to travel abroad that the Order of the Sandiganbayan
the various problems involving the investments of has imposed Significantly, not any of the respondents
SanMig Corporation abroad which must be immediately have opposed petitioner's application for the issuance of
attended to by petitioner as Chairman and CEO. temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary
injunction or for permission to travel abroad."
Considering that he must first secure the permission of
the SB and abide by its conditions, he contends that it Petitioner filed a Manifestation in support of his
becomes impossible for him to immediately attend to his motion for reconsideration, setting forth the urgency of
tasks. lifting the ban on foreign travel.

September 3, 1998 Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation

Second motion reiterating application for TRO indicating that it is not interposing any objection to
and/or PI with Urgent Motion for Hearing arguing that petitioner's prayer that he be allowed to travel abroad.
continued maintenance of the hold-departure has
deleterious consequences on him and SMC. Issue:
Whether the warrant of arrest issued by SB is null and
September 10, 1998 void, or should now be lifted if initially valid
Petitioner filed a Consolidated Reply and prayed that his
second application for a TRO and/or Writ of PI with Held:
Urgent Motion be now acted upon and filed another Petitioner and the Office of the Special Prosecutor both
one (third) on September 17, 1998 argue that the warrant of arrest issued by respondent
Sandiganbayan is null and void for lack of sufficient
After SB commented, the court noted the aforesaid basis upon which it could have "personally'' determined
comment and resolved to set the case for oral argument the existence of probable cause to issue the warrant of
on October 21, 1998. arrest against him. They contend that there was a
violation of Section 2, Article III of the Constitution
Court suggested that parties take up their arguments the because the Information in Criminal Case No. 22018
ff. issues: was accompanied only by the Resolution of the Panel of
1. “Whether the warrant of arrest issued by Graft Investigators of the Office of the Ombudsman
respondent Sandiganbayan is null and void, or recommending the filing of the information and the
should now be lifted if initially valid; Memorandum of the Office of the Special Prosecutor
2. Whether petitioner's basic rights to due process, denying the existence of a prejudicial question which will
speedy trial and speedy disposition of the case have warrant the suspension of the filing of the criminal case.
been violated as to warrant dismissal of criminal Their argument is principally anchored on the
case no. 22018; pronouncements made in the case of Ho vs. People
3. Whether the ban on foreign travel imposed on that reliance on the prosecutor's report alone is not
petitioner per order of February 20, 1995 should be sufficient in determining whether there is probable cause
vacated to enable petitioner to go abroad without for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Consequent to
prior permission of, and other restrictions imposed the nullity of the warrant of arrest, petitioner further
by, the respondent Sandiganbayan." argues that the Sandiganbayan has not acquired
jurisdiction over him and is without power to exercise the
The motion of counsel for petitioner that the issue of same.
lifting the ban on foreign travel be resolved first, was
held under advisement. Office of the Special Prosecutor and the Office of the
Solicitor General maintain that any infirmity that may
Petitioner filed another Motion to Resolve have attended the issuance of the warrant of arrest
Petitioner's, "Motion for Issuance of a Temporary was cured by petitioner's voluntary submission to
Criminal Procedure | Atty. Galeon | A.Y. 2020 – 2021 | AGregorio
the jurisdiction of the respondent Sandiganbayan when against the accused: (1) the Resolution dated June 2,
petitioner posted bail and subsequently invoked the 1992 of the Panel of Investigators of the Office of the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by filing Ombudsman recommending the filing of the Information
numerous motions wherein he sought affirmative and (2) the Memorandum dated June 16, 1995 of the
reliefs. Office of the Special Prosecutor denying the existence
of a prejudicial question which will warrant the
Pertinent to the issue at hand is the second clause of suspension of the criminal case. The Sandiganbayan
Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution had nothing more to support its resolution.
“No search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except SC Mentioned Roberts v. CA and Ho v. PP regarding
upon a probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of
issuance of warrant of arrest on the basis of the
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, prosecutor’s findings and recommendation without
and particularly describing the place to be searched and benefit of the records or evidence.
the persons or things to be seized."
We are now constrained to rule that herein
Ho vs. People: on the matter of determining of probable respondent court failed to abide by the
cause to merit the issuance of a warrant of arrest: constitutional mandate of personally determining the
existence of probable cause before issuing a
First. The determination of probable cause by the warrant of arrest. For the two cited documents were the
prosecutor is for a purpose different from that which is product of somebody else's determination, insufficient to
to be made by the judge. Whether there is reasonable support a finding of probable cause by the
ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense Sandiganbayan. Hence, the warrant of arrest issued
charged and should be held for trial is what the prosecutor by respondent court on February 17, 1995 against
passes upon. The judge, on the other hand, determines
herein petitioner is palpably invalid.
whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the
accused, i.e., whether there is a necessity for placing him
under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends Crucial issue now posed is whether or not
of justice. respondent Sandiganbayan could still exercise
Jurisdiction over the petitioner and proceed with the
Second. Since their objectives are different, the judge trial of the case.
cannot rely solely on the report of the prosecutor in finding
probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant of Office of the Special Prosecutor and the Office of the
arrest. Obviously and understandably, the contents of the Solicitor General are in agreement, that whatever
prosecutor's report will support his own conclusion. infirmity might have attended the issuance of the warrant
However, the judge must decide independently. Hence,
of arrest against petitioner, it was cured by petitioner's
he must have supporting evidence, other than the
prosecutor's bare report. Parenthetically, the prosecutor subsequent act of voluntarily submitting to respondent
could ease the burden of the judge and speed up the court's jurisdiction by posting his bail and filing the
litigation process by forwarding to the latter not only the following pleadings which sought affirmative relief, to wit
information and his bare resolution finding probable cause, (1) Opposition to Issuance of Warrant of Arrest with
but also so much of the records and the evidence on hand Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration;
as to enable His Honor to make his personal and separate (2) Motion for extension of time to file Motion for
judicial finding on whether to issue a warrant of arrest. Reconsideration; (3) seven Motions to Travel Abroad
and two Motions for Extension of time to stay
Lastly. What is required, rather, is that the judge must abroad.
have sufficient supporting documents (such as the
complaint, affidavits, counter- affidavits, sworn statements
of witnesses or transcripts of stenographic notes, if any) Petitioner objects to this contention, and asserts
upon which to make his independent judgment or, at the that "since the warrant of arrest issued by
very least, upon which to verify the findings of the respondent Sandiganbayan is null and void, it never
prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause. The point acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
is he cannot rely solely and entirely on the prosecutor's petitioner; as a consequence, it never acquired
recommendation. Although the prosecutor enjoys the legal jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense
presumption of regularity in the performance of his official charged and to issue any order adverse to the rights
duties and functions, which in turn gives his report the of petitioner, including an Order restricting his right
presumption of accuracy, the Constitutions, we repeat,
to travel." Submission is not only absurd but also
commands the judge to personally determine probable
cause in the issuance of warrants of arrest. This Court
oppressive and offensive to the Bill of Rights since it
has consistently held that a judge fails in his bounden duty would mean that to preserve his right against the
if he relies merely on the certification or the report of the issuance of a warrant of arrest without probable cause
investigating officer." determined in accordance with Sec. 2, Article III of the
Constitution, petitioner should have allowed himself to
As alleged by petitioner, in the case at bar, the be incarcerated or imprisoned from the time the warrant
Sandiganbayan had two pieces of documents to of arrest was issued on February 20, 1995 up to the
consider when it resolved to issue the warrant of arrest present, or for more than three (3) years now, and
Criminal Procedure | Atty. Galeon | A.Y. 2020 – 2021 | AGregorio
continue to be imprisoned until the Supreme Court the jurisdiction of respondent court, the O ce of the
decides to declare the arrest void. Special Prosecutor has pointed out that petitioner is not
without a remedy. Petitioner could have led a
Well-settled that the giving or posting of bail by the petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for
accused is tantamount to submission of his person to the the issuance of a temporary restraining order, rather
jurisdiction of the court. Thus, it has been held in State than actively participate in the proceedings before
ex rel. John Brown vs. Fitzgerald: the Sandiganbayan.

"When a defendant in a criminal case is brought before a Petitioner also invokes the Memorandum of the O ce of
competent court by virtue of a warrant of arrest or the Special Prosecutor dated October 22, 1995
otherwise, in order to avoid the submission of his body to recommending the dismissal of the case against him due
the jurisdiction of the court he must raise the question of to the absence of probable cause, which was later on
the court's jurisdiction over his person at the very earliest approved by the Ombudsman.
opportunity. If he gives bail, demurs to the complaint or
files any dilatory plea or pleads to the merits, he Citing the case of Torralba vs. Sandiganbayan,
thereby gives the court jurisdiction over his person. petitioner argues that this Memorandum is an integral
"Conceding again that the warrant issued in this case was
part of the preliminary investigation and should take
void for the reason that no probable cause was found the
defendant waived all his rights to object to the same by precedence notwithstanding the fact that the same was
appearing and giving bond." made after the ling of the Information before the
By posting bail, herein petitioner cannot claim exemption Sandiganbayan, for to deny any e cacy to the nding of
from the effect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the O ce of the Special Prosecutor would negate the
respondent court. While petitioner has exerted efforts to right of the petitioner to a preliminary investigation.
continue disputing the validity of the issuance of the
warrant of arrest despite his posting bail, his claim has The well-entrenched rule however, as laid down by the
been negated when he himself invoked the case of Crespo vs. Mogul
jurisdiction of respondent court through the filing of
various motions that sought other affirmative reliefs. “once a complaint or information is led in Court any
disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction
La Naval Drug v. CA or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion
of the Court. Although the scal retains the direction and
"[L]ack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may control even while the case is already in Court he cannot
be waived either expressly or impliedly. When a defendant impose his opinion on the trial court. The Court is the
voluntarily appears, he is deemed to have submitted best and sole judge on what to do with the case
himself to the jurisdiction of the court. If he so wishes not to before it. A motion to dismiss the case led by the
waive this defense; he must do so seasonably by motion scal should be addressed to the Court who has the
for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court; option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if
otherwise, he shall be deemed to have submitted himself to
this is done before or after the arraignment of the
that jurisdiction."
accused or that the motion was led after a
reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of
[w]here the appearance is by motion for the purpose of
objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, it Justice who reviewed the records of the investigation."
must be for the sole and separate purpose of objecting to
said jurisdiction. If the appearance is for any other purpose, Nevertheless, petitioner claims exception to this rule
the defendant is deemed to have submitted himself to the by making this distinction:
jurisdiction of the court. Such an appearance gives the
court jurisdiction over the person. The preliminary investigation in Crespo vs. Mogul,
supra, was conducted by the O ce of the Provincial
Fiscal and, following established procedure with respect
Petitioner’s participation in the proceedings before the to such preliminary investigations, the preliminary
Sandiganbayan was not confined to his opposition to the investigation conducted by the scal, in the language of
issuance of a warrant of arrest but also covered other Crespo, is 'terminated upon the ling of the information
matters which called for respondent court's exercise of in the proper court' (at p. 470). On the other hand, the
its jurisdiction. Petitioner may not be heard now to deny instant case involves a preliminary investigation
said court's jurisdiction over him. Nor can we ignore the conducted by the O ce of the Special Prosecutor
long line of precedents declaring that where the accused pursuant to Sec. 11[4](a), and under Sec. 27 of R.A.
had posted bail, as required, to obtain his provisional No. 6770. In preliminary investigations conducted by the
liberty, "it becomes futile to assail the validity of the Office of the Special Prosecutor, the respondent has the
issuance of the warrants of arrest." right to le a motion for reconsideration of any resolution
within ve (5) days from receipt of written notice, and
As to petitioner's contention that he should have just pursuant to Sec. 7, Rule II of Administrative Order No. 7
allowed himself to stay in jail pending the resolution of (Rules of Procedure of the Ombudsman), the
his opposition f only to avoid waiving his right to question respondent has the right to le a motion for
Criminal Procedure | Atty. Galeon | A.Y. 2020 – 2021 | AGregorio
reconsideration within fteen (15) days from notice of then be indorsed to Sandiganbayan for its
the Resolution of the Ombudsman. Until the motion for appropriate action." 41 (Emphasis supplied) cdasia
reconsideration is resolved, preliminary
investigation is not terminated notwithstanding ling Clearly, consistent with the rule in Crespo vs. Mogul,
of information in court. In the instant case, no copy of the After the ling of the information in court, "any
Resolution of the O ce of the Special Prosecutor, which disposition of the case as to its dismissal or the
brought about the ling of the Information, was served conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound
on the petitioner; consequently, when the Information discretion of the Court."
was led, the preliminary investigation had not yet been
terminated. It follows that the Resolution of the O ce of Panganiban, J., concurring and dissenting:
the Special Prosecutor (approved by the Ombudsman)
resolving in petitioner's favor the 'Motion for Posting of bond despite nullity or irregularity in issuance
Reconsideration' he had filed, now finding no probable thereof; not deemed waiver where there was an express and
cause, was an integral part of the preliminary continuing objection to court’s jurisdiction.
investigation, not subject to review by the
Sandiganbayan (see Torralba vs. Sandiganbayan, 230 The posting of a bail bond by the petitioner shouldnot be
SCRA 33 [1994])" equated with “voluntary appearance” as to cloak the
respondent court with jurisdiction over his person. Truly, his
“appearance” in court was not “voluntary.” It should be noted
Petitioner's reliance on Torralba vs. Sandiganbayan is that immediately upon learning of the filing of the information
not, in our view, persuasive. In that case the petitioners and the issuance of the warrant, petitioner filed an
were not given any chance at all to seek reconsideration “Opposition to the Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest with
from the Ombudsman's nal resolution because they Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of the
were not furnished with a copy of the nal resolution of Ombudsman’s Resolutions”. Said opposition was based on the
the Ombudsman that could have enabled them to le a inadequacy of the respondent court’s basis for determining
motion for reconsideration. As a result, the Court probable cause. It was essentially an express and continuing
declared that "petitioners were not only effectively objection to the court’s jurisdiction over his person. Clearly,
therefore, in posting for bail and seeking permission to travel
denied the opportunity to le a motion for
abroad, the petitioner merely made special apperances in
reconsideration of the Ombudsman's nal resolution but order to obtain immediate urgent reliefs, without
also deprived of their right to a full preliminary necessarily waiving the graft court’s want of jurisdiction.
investigation preparatory to the filing of the information He merely wanted to avoid incarceration as he has hardly any
against them". 39 choice but to secure the court’s consent whenever he left the
country to attend to his personal and business concerns.
In the case at bar, however, notwithstanding the ling of Otherwise, petitioner would have been effectively rendered
the Information before the Sandiganbayan, petitioner immobile and worthless until the SB chose to resolve his case.
was able to file a motion for reconsideration of the And, as borne by the records, for three years said court
practically sat on his case (reconsideration of the denial of
Ombudsman's Resolution with leave of court, and in his Opposition). Under the circumstances, petitioner’s actions
fact his two motions for extensions to le the same should not be construed as a waiver of his right to object the
were granted by the respondent court. This eventually nullity of his arrest. I submit that to rule otherwise as the
paved the way for the ling of subsequent Memorandum majority did is most unfair and unjust, because an accused
of the O ce of the Special Prosecutor, which was later could be indefinitely detained as a result of the trial court’s
on approved by the Ombudsman, recommending the expedient of merely sitting on the objection to the issuance of
dismissal of the case against him. However, since the the warrant.
Information has already been led before the
Sandiganbayan, the resolution of the aforesaid VITUG, J. concurring
recommendation now lies within the jurisdiction and
discretion of respondent court. Parenthetically, in the Procedural flaws in issuance thereof deemed waived in posting
Torralba case, we did not altogether deprive the bond
Sandiganbayan of its jurisdiction to proceed with the
case, despite the defect in the conduct of the preliminary The foregoing dictum would be inconsequential in a case when
the person on whom the warrant it served has, in some other
investigation, since we declared that:
way, effectively submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the
court. One such case is by the posting of bail. The fact that the
"The incomplete preliminary investigation in this case, issuance of the warrant of arrest is assailed for its procedural
however, does not warrant the quashal of the flaws before the posting of bail is of little moment since the
information, nor should it obliterate the proceedings arrest relates merely to the jurisdiction to the court which
already had. Neither is the court's jurisdiction nor validity posting would only be feasible if the court allowing it would
of an information adversely affected by de ciencies in have first acquired lawful jurisdiction over person at the time.
the preliminary investigation. Instead, the
Sandiganbayan is to hold in abeyance any further
proceedings therein and to remand the case to the
O ce of the Ombudsman for the completion of the
preliminary investigation, the outcome of which shall
Criminal Procedure | Atty. Galeon | A.Y. 2020 – 2021 | AGregorio