SALUDAGA and GENIO V. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

A petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order assailing the July 14, 2008 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan in a Criminal Case denying the Motion for Preliminary Investigation filed by the petitioners who were charged with a violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, and the denial of their Motion for Reconsideration done in open court on August 13, 2008.

Quintin Saludaga, municipal mayor of Lavesares, Northern Samar and SPO2 Fiel Genio were charged in the Sandiganbayan of violation of Sec. 3(e) of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A.3019) by causing undue injury to the government.

The Sandiganbayan dismissed the information "for failure of the prosecution to allege and prove the amount of actual damages caused the government, an essential element of the crime charged.

The Ombudsman directed the Office of the Special Prosecutor to study the possibility of having the information amended and re-filed with the Sandiganbayan.

The OSP re-filed the Information. Now, charging the petitioners for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, by giving unwarranted benefit to a private person, to the prejudice of the government.

Petitioners filed a Motion for Preliminary Investigation.

Petitioners contend that the failure of the prosecution to conduct a new preliminary investigation before the filing of the second Information constituted a violation of the law because the latter charged a different offensethat is, violation of Section 3(e) by giving unwarranted benefit to private parties. Hence, there was a substitution of the first Information. They argue that assuming that no substitution took place, at the very least, there was a substantial amendment in the new information and that its submission should have been preceded by a new preliminary investigation.

Petitioners also highlighted that newly discovered evidence mandates due re-examination of the finding of prima facie cause to file the case which necessitates a new preliminary investigation.

ISSUE:

a.Whether or not the presence of newly discovered evidence necessitates a new preliminary investigation.

b.Whether or not Sandiganbayan acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

RULING:

No. The piece of evidence sought to be considered by the Petitioners cannot be considered as newly found evidence because it was already in existence prior to the re-filing of the case. In fact, such sworn affidavit was among the documents considered during the preliminary investigation. It was the sole annexed document to petitioners Supplement to Motion for Reinvestigation, offered to dispute the charge that no public bidding was conducted prior to the execution of the subject project.

The case at bench discloses no evident indication that respondent Sandiganbayan acted with arbitrariness, whim or caprice. It committed no error in refusing to order the conduct of another preliminary investigation. As sufficiently explained by the prosecution, a new preliminary investigation is not necessary as there was neither a modification of the nature of the offense charged nor a new allegation. Such conduct of preliminary investigation anew will only delay the resolution of the case and would be an exercise in futility in as much as there was a complete preliminary investigation actively participated by both petitioners.

The Petition is denied.

Case: Collector vs. Villaluz

Facts:

Petitioner Collector of Customs, Salvador T. Mascardo filed against Cesar T. Makapugay, a letter complaint with respondent Judge of the Circuit Criminal Court for violation of NIRC, Central Bank Circular 265 and RA 1937 claiming that Cesar T. Makapugay "with malicious intention to defraud the government criminally, willfully and feloniously brought into the country FORTY (40) cartons of "untaxed blue seal" Salem cigarettes and FIVE (5) bottles of Johny Walker Scotch Whiskey, also "untaxed", without the necessary permit from the proper authorities.

The respondent submitted a Baggage Declaration Entry which did not declare the said articles.

Respondent Judge assumed jurisdiction to conduct and did conduct the preliminary investigation, and on July 6, 1971, issued the challenged order, dismissing "the case with prejudice and ordering the return to private respondent the amount of P2,280.00, his passport No. Ag-2456 FA - No. B103813, and one (1) box of air-conditioning evaporator only, as well as the forfeiture of forty (40) cartons of untaxed blue seal Salem cigarettes and five (5) bottles of Johnny Walker Scotch Whiskey" (p. 13, rec.).

Armed with said order, private respondent Makapugay demanded that petitioner release the articles so stated.

Petitioner Collector of Customs refused to obey the order due to the "prior institution of seizure proceedings thereon." The refusal prompted respondent Makapugay to file a complaint for "Open Disobedience" under Article 231 of the Revised Penal Code, before the City Fiscal of Pasay City.

Hence, this petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, seeking to annul and set aside the order dated July 6, 1971 on the ground that respondent Judge has no power to conduct a preliminary investigation of criminal complaints directly filed with him, cannot legally order the dismissal "with prejudice" of a criminal case after conducting a preliminary investigation thereon, and is without authority to order the return of articles subject of seizure proceedings before Customs authorities. In these six cases, one common legal issue is whether a Circuit Criminal Court possesses the power to conduct preliminary investigations which is significant to determine whether items may be returned or not.

Issue:

WON the items seized may be returned

Held:

The dismissal of a case, even with prejudice, during the stage of preliminary investigation does not bar subsequent prosecution and conviction if the evidence warrants the re-filing of the same becomes next to impossible. For the enforcement of such order would virtually deprive herein petitioner Collector of Customs of the evidence indispensable to a successful prosecution of the case against the private respondent.

Worse, the order nullified the power of seizure of the customs official. Respondent Judge ignored the established principle that from the moment imported goods are actually in the possession or control of the Customs authorities, even if no warrant of seizure had previously been issued by the Collector of Customs in connection with seizure and forfeiture proceedings, the Bureau of Customs acquires exclusive jurisdiction over such imported goods for the purpose of enforcing the Customs laws, subject to an appeal only to the Court of Tax Appeals and to final review by the Supreme Court.

Such exclusive jurisdiction precludes the Court of First Instance as well as the Circuit Criminal Court from assuming cognizance of the subject matter and divests such courts of the prerogative to replevin properties subject to seizure and forfeiture proceedings for violation of the Tariff and Customs Code because proceedings for the forfeiture of goods illegally imported are not criminal in nature since they do not result in the conviction of wrongdoer nor in the imposition upon him of a penalty.