Budiongan vs. Dela Cruz

The modification of a criminal charge during preliminary investigation without conducting a new preliminary investigation does not violate due process where the amended charge is based on the same set of facts and alleged illegal acts, and the right to a preliminary investigation, being merely statutory, is deemed waived if not invoked before arraignment.

Municipal Ordinance No. 2 (2001) appropriated P450,000.00 for the purchase of a road roller for the Municipality of Carmen, Bohol. The Municipal Development Council subsequently recommended realigning the amount for asphalt laying. Before the Sangguniang Bayan approved the realignment, the municipal treasurer certified fund availability, bidding was conducted, the contract was awarded, and work commenced. The Sangguniang Bayan later authorized the contract and passed an ordinance approving the realignment, after which the contractor was paid.

• Appropriation and Proposed Realignment: Municipal Ordinance No. 2 (2001) appropriated P450,000.00 for a road roller. The Municipal Development Council recommended realigning the fund for asphalt laying via Resolution No. 3. The Sangguniang Bayan deferred discussion on the proposed realignment.
• Premature Award and Execution: The Municipal Treasurer issued a Certificate of Availability of Funds. Bidding was conducted on March 5, 2002. Mayor Budiongan issued the Notice of Award and Notice to Commence Work to Malmis General Merchandise and Contractor, Inc. on March 6, 2002. The Sangguniang Bayan authorized the mayor to sign the contract on March 22, 2002.
• Belated Approval and Payment: The Sangguniang Bayan passed Ordinance No. 8 on May 17, 2002, approving the fund realignment. Malmis was paid the contract price on June 14, 2002.
• Complaint and Modification of Charges: Private respondents filed a complaint alleging illegality in the bidding and award due to the absence of appropriated funds. The Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas found probable cause for violation of Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code. Upon review, the Office of the Special Prosecutor modified the charge to violations of Sections 3(e) and 3(h) of R.A. No. 3019, filing two separate Informations before the Sandiganbayan.
• Sandiganbayan Proceedings: Petitioners moved to quash the Section 3(e) Information; the Sandiganbayan granted the motion and remanded the case for amendment, holding that the benefit to Malmis was not unwarranted as the project was completed. An Amended Information alleging undue injury to the government was filed and admitted. Petitioners sought reinvestigation, which the Sandiganbayan denied for Criminal Case No. 28076 due to prior arraignment, but granted leave to file a motion for reconsideration with the Special Prosecutor for Criminal Case No. 28075. The Special Prosecutor denied the motion for reconsideration.

• Due Process: Petitioners argued that the modification of the charge from Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code to Sections 3(e) and 3(h) of R.A. No. 3019 without a new preliminary investigation denied them the opportunity to present counter-evidence, violating their right to due process.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioners maintained that the Office of the Special Prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding probable cause for violations of R.A. No. 3019 and in denying their motion for reconsideration.

• Due Process in Preliminary Investigation: Whether the modification of the charge without a new preliminary investigation violated petitioners' right to due process.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the Office of the Special Prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and in denying the motion for reconsideration.

• Due Process in Preliminary Investigation: Due process was not violated. The right to a preliminary investigation is statutory, not constitutional; its absence does not impair the validity of an Information. The modification of the charge did not take petitioners by surprise because it was based on the same set of facts and alleged illegal acts. Furthermore, the right to preliminary investigation is deemed waived when the accused fails to invoke it before or at the time of entering a plea at arraignment, which occurred here.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No grave abuse of discretion was found. The Office of the Special Prosecutor acts under the Ombudsman's supervision and control, exercising discretionary powers based on constitutional mandate. Courts generally defer to the Ombudsman's determination of probable cause, which requires only evidence showing that more likely than not a crime was committed by the suspect, absent a clear showing of arbitrariness.

• Right to Preliminary Investigation — A statutory right, not a constitutional one. Its absence does not impair the validity of the Information or affect the court's jurisdiction. The right is deemed waived if not invoked before or at the time of entering a plea at arraignment.
• Probable Cause — Needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence, proof beyond reasonable doubt, or absolute certainty of guilt.
• Ombudsman's Discretion — The Ombudsman possesses broad discretionary powers to approve or disapprove the recommendation of the investigating prosecutor based on constitutional mandate. Courts will not interfere with this discretion absent a clear showing of grave abuse amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

• "The right to a preliminary investigation is not a constitutional right, but is merely a right conferred by statute. The absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the Information or otherwise render the same defective."
• "A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect."

• Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, 444 Phil. 499 (2003) — Followed for the rule that absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the Information and that courts must defer to the prosecutor's finding of probable cause absent arbitrariness.
• People v. Buluran, 382 Phil. 364 (2000) — Followed for the rule that the right to preliminary investigation is waived if not invoked before arraignment.
• Webb v. De Leon, 317 Phil. 758 (1995) — Followed for the definition and standard of probable cause.
• Gallardo v. People, G.R. No. 142030, April 21, 2005 — Followed for the doctrine of non-interference in the Ombudsman's exercise of discretion absent grave abuse.

• Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019 — Prohibits causing undue injury to any party, including the government, through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. Applied as the modified charge against petitioners for prematurely awarding the contract and causing damage to the government.
• Section 3(h), Republic Act No. 3019 — Prohibits having financial or pecuniary interest in a contract in connection with which one intervenes in an official capacity. Applied as the modified charge against petitioner Budiongan.
• Article 220, Revised Penal Code — Penalizes illegal use of public funds or property. Originally charged by the Deputy Ombudsman but modified by the Special Prosecutor.
• Section 8, Rule III, Administrative Order No. 7 (1990) — Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman. Cited to show that a motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation requires newly discovered evidence or grave errors prejudicial to the movant's interest.
• Rule 112, Section 1, Rules of Court — Defines the purpose of a preliminary investigation as determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe the accused is guilty.

Panganiban, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., Chico-Nazario