JESUS E. SANCIANGCO, JR., AND NAPOLEON E. SANCIANGCO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE HONORABLE BERNARDO P. FERNANDEZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS TANO…

On September 5,
1984, private respondent Borje filed a
complaint in the Office of the City Fiscal, Ozamis
City, against the petitioners for
violation of Section 3(f), Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.  The charge alleged
“the unjustifiable refusal after a lawful demand to the respondent Mayor
to sign the Business Permit to held cockfight at the Ozamis City Coliseum unless the coliseum comes across and
settles a promised donation in favor of the Association of Barangay Councils of which his brother Napoleon was the
President and to whom the amount of P3,000.00 should be
given.  And this was despite the coliseum having paid in full all
licenses, fees, and among others, the business permit which had to be signed by
the Mayor”.

On September 12,
1984, private respondent Borje submitted
the affidavits of his witnesses in support of his complaint.

The petitioners submitted their counter-affidavits, dated
September 14,
1984 and September 19, 1984, respectively, as
well as documentary evidence.

Deputized Prosecutor Epifanio
Vergara of Ozamis
City
started to conduct the preliminary investigation but inhibited himself from
resolving the case.

The Office of the Tanodbayan re-assigned
the case to Deputized Prosecutor Luzviminda V. Uy, also of Ozamis
City, for resolution but she likewise
inhibited herself.

The Tanodbayan ordered the matter
re-assigned to Juanito Ibanez, also of
Ozamis
City, but
the private respondent requested for his disqualification, which was
granted.

The Tanodbayan, through telegram,
ordered the transmission of the records of the case to the Office of the Tanodbayan,
Manila which “will conduct
preliminary investigation thereon”.

The case was assigned to Special Prosecutor Eduardo R. Benitez who
forthwith issued a Resolution on June 7,
1985, finding enough prima facie evidence against the
petitioners to warrant their indictment for violation of Republic Act 3019,
Section 3(f) and Section 4 thereof.  The resolution was approved by
the Tanodbayan.

On June 26,
1985, an information was filed against the
petitioners before the respondent Sandiganbayan for
violation of Section 3(f) and Section 4 of Republic Act 3019, as
amended.

On July 30,
1985, the petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or
Reinvestigation of the Resolution of June 7, 1985, on the ground that said resolution is
without factual and legal basis and that they did not commit any act in
violation of Section 3(f) and Section 4 of Republic Act 3019, as amended. 
This motion was denied for lack of merit.  A motion for
reconsideration of the order of denial filed by the petitioners suffered the
same fate.

It is now stressed by the petitioners that the proceedings
before the Sandiganbayan are null and void because no
preliminary investigation of the case was first conducted.

The petitioners argue that since the Tanodbayan sought the transmission of the records of the
case to its office in
Manila to
“conduct preliminary investigation thereon”, it is
bound to conduct that investigation pursuant to law.

It is further argued that the Tanodbayan, in resolving the case against the petitioners,
considered evidence not previously made available to the petitioners. 
This evidence refers to the sworn statement of Engr. Estanislao Bodiongan, the President of the Coliseum, stating that the
coliseum had no obligation whatsoever to pay P3,000.00
either to Napoleon Sanciangco or to the Association of
Barangay Councils.  This surfaced only
upon the transmittal of the case records to the Office of the Tanodbayan.  Hence, for lack of preliminary
investigation conducted by the Tanodbayan, the
petitioners were not given the opportunity to controvert the evidence of the
complainant.

The absence of preliminary investigations does not affect
the court’s jurisdiction over the case.  Nor do they impair the
validity of the information or otherwise render it defective; but, if there were
no preliminary investigations and the defendants, before entering their plea,
invite the attention of the court to their absence, the court, instead of
dismissing the information, should conduct such
investigation, order the fiscal to conduct it or remand the case to the inferior
court so that the preliminary investigation may be conducted.  (See
People v. Gomez, 117 SCRA 72, 77-78, citing People v.
Casiano, 1 SCRA 478).  In this case, the Tanodbayan has the duty to conduct the said
investigation.

CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING, the
COURT RESOLVED to GRANT the petition and SET ASIDE the
Resolution of the Tanodbayan dated June 7, 1985 and all acts of the
respondents subsequent thereto.  The Tanodbayan is hereby ordered to CONDUCT
a preliminary investigation of Criminal Case No. 10471.

SO
ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Fernan,
Narvasa, Cruz, Paras, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Melencio-Hererra and Feliciano, JJ., on
leave.

Sarmiento, J., no part, having been counsel of the
petitioners