Sanchez vs. Demetriou

The DOJ Panel of State Prosecutors had concurrent authority with the Ombudsman to conduct the preliminary investigation and file the informations against a public official, and any defect in the accused's initial warrantless arrest is cured by the subsequent issuance of a valid warrant of arrest by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Petitioner Antonio L. Sanchez, then Municipal Mayor of Calauan, Laguna, was implicated in the rape-slay of Mary Eileen Sarmenta and the killing of Allan Gomez. The Presidential Anti-Crime Commission requested the filing of charges. The DOJ Panel of State Prosecutors conducted a preliminary investigation. Sanchez was later served an "invitation" from a PNP Commander, taken to a military camp for investigation, placed on "arrest status," and subsequently brought to the DOJ. Seven informations for rape with homicide were filed against Sanchez and six co-accused. The cases were transferred from Laguna to Pasig, Metro Manila, due to apprehensions about a fair trial.

• Nature of the Case: Petitioner sought to quash seven informations for rape with homicide filed against him and six co-accused.
• Preliminary Investigation: The DOJ Panel conducted hearings on August 9 and 13, 1993. Petitioner's counsel (Atty. Brion on Aug. 9, Atty. Panelo on Aug. 13) explicitly waived the submission of counter-affidavits.
• Arrest and Custody: On August 13, 1993, petitioner was served an "invitation" by PNP Commander Rex Piad, taken to Camp Vicente Lim, and placed on "arrest status" after being identified by state witnesses. He was then taken to the DOJ. A warrant of arrest for other charges (R.A. 6713 violations) was served on him that same day.
• Filing of Informations: Seven separate informations were filed, alleging each accused personally raped Sarmenta, with the killing complexing the crime and the killing of Gomez as an aggravating circumstance.
• Transfer of Venue: Upon recommendation of the Secretary of Justice, the Supreme Court ordered the cases transferred from Laguna to Pasig due to potential bias.
• Motion to Quash: Petitioner moved to quash, raising multiple grounds, which was denied by the trial court.

• Preliminary Investigation: Petitioner argued he was denied the right to present counter-affidavits and evidence during the preliminary investigation.
• Ombudsman's Jurisdiction: Petitioner contended that only the Ombudsman had jurisdiction to investigate a public official like him, citing Deloso v. Domingo.
• Illegal Arrest: Petitioner maintained his warrantless arrest was illegal, thus the court never acquired jurisdiction over his person.
• Duplicity of Offense: Petitioner argued the filing of seven informations for the death of two persons was absurd and violated the rule against charging multiple offenses.
• Discrimination: Petitioner claimed the informations were discriminatory for not including other alleged conspirators (Teofilo Alqueza and Edgardo Lavadia).
• Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction: Petitioner initially argued that as public officials, the case should be tried by the Sandiganbayan.

• Preliminary Investigation: Respondents countered that petitioner's counsel voluntarily waived the right to submit counter-affidavits on two separate occasions.
• Ombudsman's Jurisdiction: Respondents argued the Ombudsman's authority is concurrent, not exclusive, with the DOJ.
• Arrest and Jurisdiction: Respondents argued that even if the initial arrest was illegal, the subsequent valid arrest warrant issued by the trial court cured the defect and vested jurisdiction.
• Informations: Respondents contended that each information charged a distinct complex crime of rape with homicide, as each accused was alleged to have personally committed the rape.
• Discrimination: Respondents asserted prosecutorial discretion in determining who to charge based on evidence.
• Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction: Respondents argued the crime was not committed in relation to the petitioner's office.

• Preliminary Investigation: Whether petitioner was denied his right to present evidence during the preliminary investigation.
• Ombudsman's Jurisdiction: Whether the DOJ Panel had jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation and file the informations, or whether such authority belonged exclusively to the Ombudsman.
• Validity of Arrest and Jurisdiction: Whether the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner despite an allegedly illegal warrantless arrest.
• Duplicity of Offense: Whether the filing of seven separate informations for rape with homicide arising from two deaths is proper.
• Discrimination: Whether the failure to include other alleged conspirators in the informations constitutes impermissible discrimination.
• Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction: Whether the Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over the case.

• Preliminary Investigation: The right to present counter-affidavits was validly waived by petitioner's counsel on two separate occasions. The records showed explicit waivers. Furthermore, any defect in a preliminary investigation does not impair the information's validity or the court's jurisdiction; the remedy is to request a reinvestigation from the trial court.
• Ombudsman's Jurisdiction: The Ombudsman's authority under R.A. 6770 to investigate public officials is concurrent with the DOJ. The ruling in Deloso v. Domingo was clarified to mean shared, not exclusive, authority. The approval of the Ombudsman for the informations was not required.
• Validity of Arrest and Jurisdiction: The initial warrantless arrest was illegal as it did not fall under the exceptions in Rule 113, Sec. 5. However, the subsequent issuance of a valid arrest warrant by the trial court on August 26, 1993, cured the defect and lawfully vested jurisdiction over petitioner's person. Additionally, by raising other grounds in his motion to quash, petitioner waived the objection to personal jurisdiction.
• Duplicity of Offense: The informations were proper. Each of the seven accused was charged with personally raping the victim, thereby committing a distinct complex crime of rape with homicide. The rule against duplicity of offenses (Rule 110, Sec. 13) does not apply as each information charges a single complex crime.
• Discrimination: The allegation of discrimination is without merit. The prosecutor has discretion to file charges against those against whom he believes sufficient evidence exists. The petitioner failed to show grave abuse of discretion, and the proper remedy to compel inclusion of other accused is mandamus, not certiorari.
• Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction: The Sandiganbayan lacks jurisdiction. The crime of rape with homicide is not committed "in relation to [the accused's] office" as defined in Montilla v. Hilario and People v. Montejo. The informations contained no allegation of an intimate connection between the crime and the petitioner's official functions.

• Concurrent Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and DOJ — The Ombudsman's power to investigate illegal acts of public officials under R.A. 6770 is not exclusive but concurrent with other investigatory agencies like the Department of Justice.
• Cure of Defective Arrest by Subsequent Warrant — An illegal or defective arrest is cured by the subsequent issuance of a valid warrant of arrest by a court of competent jurisdiction, which vests jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
• Waiver of Objection to Personal Jurisdiction — An accused who, in a motion to quash, raises grounds other than the court's lack of jurisdiction over his person is deemed to have waived that objection and submitted to the court's jurisdiction.
• Offense "In Relation to Office" for Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction — For the Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction, the public officer's offense must be intimately connected with the discharge of official functions; the office must be a constituent element of the crime or the information must allege such a direct relation. Ordinary crimes like rape with homicide do not qualify.

• "The authority of the Ombudsman to investigate 'any [illegal] act or omission of any public official' is not an exclusive authority but rather a shared or concurrent authority in respect of the offense charged."
• "The rule is that if the accused objects to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, he may move to quash the information, but only on that ground. If, as in this case, the accused raises other grounds in the motion to quash, he is deemed to have waived that objection and to have submitted his person to the jurisdiction of that court."
• "It is of course absurd to suggest that Mary Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez were killed seven times, but the informations do not make such a suggestion. It is the petitioner who does so and is thus hoist by his own petard."

• Deloso v. Domingo, 191 SCRA 545 (1990) — Initially cited by petitioner for exclusive Ombudsman jurisdiction; the Court clarified its ruling, stating the authority is concurrent.
• Aguinaldo v. Domagas, G.R. No. 98452 (1991) — Applied to confirm the Ombudsman's concurrent authority with the DOJ.
• Montilla v. Hilario, 90 Phil. 49 — Defined an "offense committed in relation to the office" as one where the office is a constituent element of the crime.
• People v. Montejo, 108 Phil. 613 — Distinguished; in that case, the information alleged an intimate connection between the murder and the accused's official functions, which was absent here.
• Umil v. Ramos, 187 SCRA 312 & 202 SCRA 215 — Cited for the doctrine that a subsequent valid warrant cures a prior defective detention.

• Section 3(d), Rule 112, Rules of Court — Provides that if the respondent waives the submission of a counter-affidavit, the investigating officer shall base his resolution on the complainant's evidence.
• Section 1, Rule 113, Rules of Court — Defines arrest.
• Section 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court — Enumerates the instances when a warrantless arrest is lawful.
• Section 13, Rule 110, Rules of Court — Requires that a complaint or information must charge only one offense, except where a single punishment is prescribed for various offenses.
• Section 4(a), P.D. No. 1606 (as amended) — Defines the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over offenses committed by public officers in relation to their office.
• R.A. No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) — Provides the Ombudsman's jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute illegal acts of public officials.

Justices Florentino P. Feliciano, Teodoro R. Padilla, Abdulwahid A. Bidin, Florenz D. Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Melo, Quiason, Puno, and Vitug concurred. Chief Justice Narvasa took no part. Justice Bellosillo was on leave.

N/A — The decision was unanimous among the participating justices.