G.R. No. 160864 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR..[G.R. No. 160897] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly docketed as G.R. No. 93884. [18] In a Resolution dated19 June 2001, [19] the Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of Sandiganbayan in issuing a warrant of arrest against respondent. The Court declined to interfere with the finding of probable cause by the Sandiganbayan considering that the matter was addressed to the latter's sound discretion. [20] Instead, it directed the Sandiganbayan "to resume the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 14161 and dispose of the same with deliberate dispatch." [21] In compliance with this Court's ruling, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution [22] setting the arraignment of respondent and the pre-trial of the case on 18 and 19 September 2002, respectively. [23] However, the scheduled arraignment of the case did not push through. Instead, on 18 September 2002, the prosecution was directed to submit a Memorandum in support of its position that the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over respondent. [24] The arraignment and pre-trial of respondent were rescheduled for 7 November 2002. The PCGG filed the required Memorandum on 1 October 2002. [25] Citing Executive Order No. 14 (E.O. 14), as amended, it argued that it was mandated to tile all cases involving the ill-gotten wealth of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos and his family before the Sandiganbayan, which shall exercise exclusive and original jurisdiction over the same. [26] On 28 October 2002, respondent filed a Reply Memorandum addressing the arguments raised by the PCGG. In particular, he assailed the preliminary investigation it had conducted and the Information filed against him on the basis of this Court's pronouncements in Cojuangco v. Presidential Commission on Good Governance . [27] Respondent argued that the factual circumstances leading to the Court's Decision in Cojuangco were likewise present herein. On 24 April 2003, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution that declared null and void the preliminary investigation conducted by the PCGG and the Information filed pursuant thereto. The Sandiganbayan found the investigation arbitrary and unjust, because the entity that had gathered the evidence to support the Information filed against respondent - the PCGG - was also the entity that had conducted the preliminary investigation of his case. Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan ruled that the circumstances fell squarely within the ruling in Cojuangco : The circumstances of the instant case which fall squarely with that of Cojuangco, Jr. vs. PCGG ( supra ), are peculiar, in the sense that the PCGG itself which gathered the evidence and filed the complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation was the same entity which conducted the preliminary investigation in this case and which, according to the Supreme Court was arbitrary and unjust, thus ruling that the preliminary investigation conducted by the PCGG including the Information filed was null and void. x x x. WHEREFORE, the Information docketed as Criminal Case No. 14161, filed by the P