PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN GR No. 144159 | September 29, 2004 | Callejo, Sr., J.

RULE 112 SECTION 8: RECORDS

Demolition. Sandiganbayan acquitted without hearing

FACTS:
PABALAN FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST ALBA AND CRUZ IN THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN.
Luis Pabalan filed a complaint in the Office of the Ombudsman against the QC City Administrator
Manuel Alba, and Chairman of Iglesia Evangelica Metodista En Las Islas Filipinas (IMELIF). Graft
Investigator Romeo Pamute conducted an evaluation and a preliminary investigation.
PAMUTE FOUND PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST ALBA
FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 3(E) OF RA 3019.
Pabalan owned a lot in OC where the church of Cruz was constructed.
In Pabalan's sworn statement he stated that he is the owner of a lot in Susano Road, Novaliches,
Quezon City where the Congregation of Evangelist Chruch of the Philippines encroached on the
improvements of their structure were made in February 1997. The construction was done
without the necessary building permit.
QC assistant building official ordered the demolition of the structure.
The Assistant Building Official, after hearing, ordered the demolition of the structure. The Order
becomes final and executor upon failure of the Congregation (IMELIF) to appeal on time to the
DPWH.
Cruz wrote to Alba asking for the suspension of the demolition.
On November 4, 1998, the Congregation, through their Chairman (Cruz), wrote to City
Administrator Alba requesting that the order not be enforced pending appeal to the DPWH. They
aver that the Order of the Assistant Building Official is illegal and the implementation of the
demolition would cause irreparable damage and injury to the church
A Memoradum was issued on November 4 when the letter was received November 5, 1998.
The church sent a letter to the Office of the City Administrator and was received on November 5,
1998 but a Memorandum ordering the recall was dated November 4, 1998 or a day before the
receipt of the letter.
Pabalan requested Alba to recall the order. Alba didn't.

Pabalan sent a letter to Alba requesting him to revoke the Order in recalling the demolition but
Alba refused.
Thus, the Building Official was not able to effect the demolition.
The complaint was supported by several documents:
1. Pabalan's title to the lot;
2. Building Official's Resolution ordering the demolition of the structure;
3. Order granting the demolition
4. Letter of appeal by Cruz to the QC Mayor thru Alba stamped received by his Office on
November 5, 1998;
5. Alba's Memorandum to Engr. Romulado Santos showing that the date was November 4, 1998;
and
6. Pabalan's letter of objection and request to recall the order on the demolition.
THE OMBUDSMAN APPROVED THE RECOMMENDATION.

THE ALBA RELIED ON THE AUTHORITY DELEGATED TO HIM BY THE QUEZON CITY MAYOR.
In Alba's counter-affidavit, Alba avers that he recalled the demolition order on the basis of the
authority delegated to him under the January 12, 1994
Memorandum issued by the Mayor, as where it was stated that no demolition shall be allowed
pending an appeal to the higher authorities.
AN INFORMATION WAS FILED AGAINST ALBA IN THE SANDIGANBAYAN.
An Information was with the Sandiganbayan, charging Alba with violation of Section 3[e) of RA
3019. Attached to the Information were the following:
1. Memorandum of the Legal Counsel, Office of the Ombudsman duly approved by the
Ombudsman which recommended the filing of the information;
2. Affidavit Complaint;
3. Resolution of the EPIB (Graft Investigator).

ALBA FILED A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FOR THE OMBUDSMAN RESOLUTION.

Alba, through counsel, agreed to convert his Motion for Quashal of Information into a Motion for
the Reconsideration of the resolution of the Ombudsman finding probable cause.
The Special Prosecutor filed a Manifestation and Motion informing the Sandiganbayan that the
Office of the Ombudsman was affirming its finding of probably cause against Alba and prayed for
his arraignment.
ALBA PLEADED NOT GUILTY.
Alba was scheduled to be arraigned at 8:30AM of February 18, 2000 but it was subsequently
reset to March 27, 2000 at the same time. However, Alba entered his plea of not guilty on April
10, 2000. On the same day, the Sandiganbayan granted him a motion for leave to travel abroad
without prejudice to the resolution of his Motion to Quash the Information.

THE SANDIGANBAYAN GRANTED ALBA'S MOTION TO QUASH. ALBA WAS ACQUITTED.

The Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution granting the motion to quash the information of Alba and
acquitting Alba of the charge. The Sandiganbayan held that there was no probable cause to
charge Alba with based on the Memorandum issued by Mayor Mathay to Alba and the Resolution
of Pamute.
ISSUE: Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the Motion
to Quash the Information and acquitting Alba. YES.
HELD:
BASIS FOR SANDIGANBAYAN'S DISMISSAL WAS GROUNDLESS.
Mayor's memorandum had already been amended.
Alba has no more authority.
The January 12, 1994 Memorandum (in Annex had already been amended by Memorandum No.
4, which sates that the authority to act on violations of the Building Code no longer rested on the
City Administrator but on the City Engineer or his assistant.
Mayor Mathay's January 12, 1994 Memorandum was contrary to the National Building Code
which led to him (Mathay) to issue Memorandum No. 4. This is supported by Opinion 36, Series
of 1996 of the Secretary of Justice which ruled that only the city engineer, as the building official,
had the exclusive authority to act on matters relating to the issuance, revocation, or suspension
of demolition permits.
The Sandiganbayan deliberately omitted portions of Special Prosecutor Pamute's Resolution.

THERE WAS NO MOTION TO QUASH THE INFORMATION PENDING IN THE SANDIGANBAYAN.

With the conversion of the Omnibus Motion of Alba into a motion for reconsideration, he, in
effect, withdrew is motion to quash the Information. Accordingly, the reinvestigation was done to
ascertain once again if there was probable cause for the filing of the Information. Thus, there was
no motion to quash the information pending resolution by the Sandiganbayan.

SANDIGANBAYAN ALREADY HAD JURISDICTION OVER ALBA.

The SPO affirmed the finding of probable cause against Alba, who was subsequently arraigned on
April 10, 2000. He even posted a bail bond for his provisional liberty which was approved by the
Sandiganbayan.
The Court, thus, had already acquired jurisdiction over Alba without the need for the issuance of
a warrant of arrest.

The Sandiganbayan should have set the pre-trial of the case instead of quashing the Informatino
and even acquitting Alba. The arraignment of Alba and his posting bail proscribed the
Sandiganbayan from dismissing the case for lack of probable cause.

ABSENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AN ARREST WARRANT IS NOT A GROUND
TO QUASH THE INFORMATION
Rather, it is a ground for the dismissal of the case. If the courts find that there is no probable
cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, it may dismiss the case.
The dismissal of the case is without the prejudice to the refilling thereof unless barred by
prescription. This is found under Rule 112, Section 6
ABSENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE IS BASED ON THE AVERMENTS IN THE INFORMATION.
The absence or presence of probable cause is to be determined from the material averments of
the information and the appendages thereof as enumerated in Rule 112, Section 8 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Section 8. Records - (a) Records supporting the information of complaint. An information or
complaint filed in court shall be supported by the affidavits and counter-affidavits of the parties
and their witnesses, together with other supporting evidence and the resolution of the case.

SANDIGANBAYAN ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

By quashing the Information on the premise of lack of probable cause instead of merely
dismissing the case, the Sandiganbayan acted in violation of case law and thus acted with grave
abuse of discretion.
ACOUITTING ALBA DENIED PABALAN DUE PROCESS
In acquitting Alba of the crime charged before trial and without Alba having prayed for such relief,
Sandiganbayan acted without jurisdiction, thereby depriving Pabalan of his right to due process.

DISMISSAL =/= ACQUITTAL

It is basic that the dismissal of the case is different from acquittal of the accused. Except in a
dismissal of the case based on a Demurrer of Evidence filed by the accused, or for violation of the
accused's right to a speedy trial, the dismissal of the criminal case will not result in the acquittal
of the said accused.
By its precipitate and patently illegal acts, the Sandiganbayan deprived the petitioner of its right
to due process, an aberration should not be countenanced.

Thus the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan is void.

Double jeopardy cannot be invoked by Alba.