Paredes Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R No.

108251, 31 January 1996

Facts
This case involves a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction filed by the
petitioners against the resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman dated December 9, 1992. The
resolution denied the petitioners' motion for the reinvestigation of three cases of falsification of
public documents filed against them and sought to restrain the Second Division of the
Sandiganbayan from hearing the cases.
The cases originated from a complaint filed on January 23, 1990, by Teofilo Gelacio,
then vice mayor of San Francisco, Agusan del Sur. The complaint alleged that the petitioners,
including Ceferino S. Paredes, Jr. (then provincial governor), Mansueto J. Honrada (clerk of
court), and Atty. Generoso Sansaet (counsel), falsified public documents related to Criminal
Case No. 1393 of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of San Francisco.

During the preliminary investigation, petitioners presented counter-affidavits denying the

charges, claiming political motivation, and asserting that an arraignment had indeed occurred.
However, Atty. Sansaet later retracted his statement, admitting there was no arraignment, leading
to a recommendation for filing falsification charges.
Petitioners moved to quash the filed cases, which was denied by the Sandiganbayan.
They subsequently sought a reinvestigation, alleging irregularities in the resolution process,
including the reliance on Atty. Sansaet's retraction and Judge Ariño's certification. The Office of
the Ombudsman conducted a reinvestigation and, in December 1992, recommended the denial of
petitioners' motion, asserting that no newly-discovered evidence or denial of due process had
been shown. The recommendation was approved, and the cases were set for trial.
The petitioners then filed the present petition, asserting that their constitutional right to
due process was violated, accusing Teofilo Gelacio of forum-shopping, and claiming that the
cases were politically motivated without prima facie evidence. They sought various reliefs,
including a temporary restraining order to halt the scheduled trial.

Issue
1. Whether the arrest and detention of the petitioner after a preliminary investigation
conducted by the Tanodbayan without notice to him is valid or not; and
2. Whether the crime charged against the petitioner had already prescribed.

Ruling and Application of the Special Penal Law

 In the case of Eden D. Paredes vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 89989, January 28, 1991),
the Court acknowledged a procedural lapse in the preliminary investigation conducted by the
Tanodbayan, noting the lack of notice to the petitioner. However, the Court unequivocally ruled
that this deficiency did not compromise the court's jurisdiction or render the information
defective. Emphasizing the proper legal recourse available to the accused, the Court clarified that
the absence of a preliminary investigation necessitates a request from the accused rather than
rendering habeas corpus a suitable remedy once a warrant of commitment is issued based on the
filed information.
Subsequently, the Court delved into the issue of the prescription of the offense under the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019). The petitioner argued that the offense had
already prescribed within the ten-year period stipulated in Section 11 of R.A. 3019, a position
endorsed by the Solicitor General. In contrast, the Ombudsman contended that the prescription
period commences not from the day of the crime but from its discovery by the offended party,
authorities, or their agents. The Court, recognizing the significance of raising the defense of
prescription in the criminal action, pointed out the petitioner's failure to do so. It stressed that the
determination of whether the crime may still be prosecuted should be addressed within the
context of the criminal case rather than through a habeas corpus proceeding. Consequently, the
Court denied the petition, directing the accused to file a P20,000 bail bond for provisional liberty
and holding the petitioner responsible for costs. In applying the provisions of R.A. 3019, the
ruling reinforced the legal mechanisms available to address corruption allegations against public
officials while providing clarity on the procedural aspects of such cases.