AUGUSTO GASPAR, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, THIRD DIVISION, HONORABLE TANODBAYAN AND ZENAIDA LANTING, RESPONDENTS.

Gaspar versus Sandiganbayan

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari, with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, brought by Augusto Gaspar against the Sandiganbayan, the Tanodbayan, and private complainant Zenaida Lanting. Gaspar had been charged with falsification of a public document for misstating his educational attainment in his Personal Data Sheet. The case was dismissed on the prosecution's own motion, then revived after the Tanodbayan granted the complainant's motion for reconsideration. Gaspar asks the Supreme Court to annul the revival and to stop his arraignment and trial. The case matters because it fixes the boundaries of due process in preliminary investigation and confirms that a dismissal before arraignment does not amount to double jeopardy.

Procedural History

An information for falsification of a public document was filed against Gaspar before the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan. His arraignment was postponed at his request because he had a pending motion for reinvestigation with the Tanodbayan. The Tanodbayan, through its special prosecutors and with the approval of Tanodbayan Bernardo Fernandez, recommended dismissal, and the Sandiganbayan dismissed the case in a resolution dated December 14, 1983. Private complainant Zenaida Lanting then wrote the Tanodbayan asking for reconsideration. A special prosecutor denied her request, but the Tanodbayan disapproved that denial, granted reconsideration, and ordered that the charge be filed anew. The prosecution filed a motion to revive the case, which the Sandiganbayan granted, re-entering the case in its docket and ordering a warrant of arrest. Gaspar orally moved to quash on the ground of previous acquittal; the Sandiganbayan denied the motion. Gaspar then filed this petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Facts

On August 24, 1982, Gaspar, then Chief of the Security Section of the Parks Development Office of the City Mayor of Manila, accomplished his Personal Data Sheet, a public document required in connection with his promotion to Administrative Officer II. In that sheet he stated that he finished second year Accounting at the University of the East, which he attended from 1963 to 1965. The information alleged that this was false, because he was enrolled only for the second semester of 1964 to 1965, earned only 36 units in the College of Business Administration, and took only one subject in Accounting. The prosecution alleged that he made this untruthful statement with the wrongful intent of enhancing his qualifications to the prejudice of other aspirants to the same position.

Gaspar moved for reinvestigation. After review, the Tanodbayan recommended dismissal, and the Sandiganbayan dismissed the case on December 14, 1983, cancelling his bond. Private complainant Zenaida Lanting asked the Tanodbayan to reconsider. The Tanodbayan granted her request and directed that the charge be filed anew.

The prosecution moved to revive the case. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion, re-entered the case in its docket, and ordered a warrant of arrest. When set for arraignment, Gaspar moved to quash on the ground of previous acquittal. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion, noting that there had been no arraignment and trial yet. Hence this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan violated Gaspar's right to procedural due process when it granted the motion to revive the information without notice and hearing.
• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in denying Gaspar's motion to quash on the ground of previous acquittal, the dismissal having been prayed for by the prosecution without condition or reservation.
• Whether or not there was actual double jeopardy.
• Whether or not the Tanodbayan denied Gaspar due process in granting the complainant's motion for reconsideration and in filing the motion to revive the information.

Applicable Provisions

Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, the offense charged, provides:

The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts: x x x 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.

This is the crime for which Gaspar was charged, and its elements frame the prosecution he sought to stop.

Presidential Decree Number 911, in relation to Rule 12 of Administrative Order Number VII, governs the Tanodbayan's power on review, and the Court quotes it as follows:

where he finds a prima facie case, to cause the filing of an information in court against the respondent, based on the same sworn statements or evidence submitted, without the necessity of conducting another preliminary investigation.

This provision supports the ruling that no second preliminary investigation was required before the charge was revived.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was no denial of due process. Although the motion to revive was heard without notice, the records show that a preliminary investigation had been conducted before the information was filed, and Gaspar was given full opportunity to present his evidence. The same evidence was used when the Tanodbayan considered his motion for reinvestigation and the complainant's request for reconsideration. Under these circumstances, he could not claim denial of due process.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the argument that the dismissal was conclusive because the prosecution prayed for it without condition or reservation. To sustain that argument, the Court said, would nullify the requisites of double jeopardy.

On the third issue, the Court held that there was no actual double jeopardy, because among other things Gaspar had not yet pleaded to the offense.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the Tanodbayan did not deny due process. Gaspar had been heard during the preliminary investigation, and the Tanodbayan acted on the same evidence without additional evidence or argument from either party. The Court also held that no rule or law requires the Tanodbayan to conduct another preliminary investigation of a case under review, and that under Presidential Decree Number 911 it may reverse the investigator's findings and cause the filing of an information based on the same sworn statements or evidence, without another preliminary investigation.

Doctrine

First, a dismissal of a criminal case before the accused has been arraigned does not place him in jeopardy; the plea is a requisite of double jeopardy. Second, the absence of notice and hearing on a motion to revive does not violate due process where the accused was fully heard during the preliminary investigation and the same evidence is used throughout. Third, the Tanodbayan may, on review, reverse the findings of its investigator and cause the filing of an information on the same evidence, without conducting another preliminary investigation.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, the assailed resolutions and orders were upheld, the restraining order was lifted, and costs were taxed against Gaspar.

Remember This

Memorize this line: there is no double jeopardy where the accused has not yet pleaded to the offense. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of double jeopardy and the scope of due process in preliminary investigation and reinvestigation.