The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision to nullify the preliminary investigation conducted by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) against Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. The Court emphasized that the PCGG’s prior involvement in gathering evidence and filing a civil case against Cojuangco for the same alleged acts compromised its impartiality during the preliminary investigation, violating his right to due process. The ruling underscores the importance of maintaining impartiality in legal proceedings, ensuring that the entity investigating a case is not the same one that has already formed conclusions about it.

PCGG’s Dual Role: Can the Investigator Be the Judge?

The case revolves around the question of whether the PCGG, having gathered evidence and filed a civil complaint against Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr., could then impartially conduct a preliminary investigation on related criminal charges. The core issue stems from Criminal Case No. 14161, where Cojuangco was charged with violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for allegedly acting as a nominee of former President Ferdinand Marcos. This charge was based on Cojuangco’s acquisition of shares in Bulletin Today Publishing Company and Liwayway Publishing, Inc. The Sandiganbayan ultimately sided with Cojuangco, nullifying the PCGG’s investigation and the subsequent information filed against him, citing a violation of due process.

The legal framework at play here primarily concerns the right to due process as enshrined in the Constitution, and specifically, the impartiality required of an investigating body. The Supreme Court leaned heavily on its previous ruling in Cojuangco v. Presidential Commission on Good Governance, which addressed similar circumstances. In that case, the Court had already established that the PCGG could not act as both investigator and judge in the same matter. The principle articulated is that an individual’s right to a fair and impartial investigation is paramount, and any process that compromises this right is inherently flawed.

To fully understand the context, it’s crucial to examine the timeline of events. Prior to the criminal charges, the PCGG had already filed Civil Case PCG No. 0022 against Cojuangco and others, seeking the recovery of ill-gotten wealth. In that civil complaint, the PCGG specifically alleged that Cojuangco acted as a dummy for Marcos in acquiring shares in Bulletin Publishing Corporation. Building on this, the PCGG’s Security and Investigation Department actively gathered additional evidence. This dual role – filing a civil suit and then gathering evidence for a criminal investigation based on the same allegations – created a conflict of interest. It raised serious questions about the PCGG’s ability to conduct a fair and unbiased preliminary investigation.

The Court highlighted the inherent unfairness of this situation. As stated in the decision:

In our criminal justice system, the law enforcer who conducted the criminal investigation, gathered the evidence and thereafter filed the complaint for the purpose of preliminary investigation cannot be allowed to conduct the preliminary investigation of his own complaint. It is to say the least arbitrary and unjust.

This quote encapsulates the essence of the Court’s reasoning: a party cannot be both the accuser and the judge. The Court further emphasized that the PCGG had already formed a prima facie case against Cojuangco when it filed the civil complaint and issued sequestration orders against his properties. Therefore, the PCGG could not possibly conduct a preliminary investigation with the “cold neutrality of an impartial judge.” This, the Court argued, was a clear violation of Cojuangco’s right to due process.

Moreover, the Petitioners (OSP and OSG) argued that the Sandiganbayan’s earlier finding of probable cause and its issuance of a warrant of arrest against Cojuangco validated the PCGG’s preliminary investigation. This argument was rejected by the Supreme Court, stating that:

The denial of due process in this case, as well as the resulting nullity of the preliminary investigation proceedings and the Information, cannot be cured by the Sandiganbayan’s earlier finding of probable cause.

This underscores a fundamental principle: a violation of due process is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be remedied by subsequent actions. Any finding made based on a flawed process is itself tainted and invalid. Even if the Sandiganbayan initially found probable cause, the underlying violation of Cojuangco’s right to a fair investigation rendered the entire process void.

The practical implications of this ruling are significant. It reinforces the importance of maintaining a separation between investigative and adjudicative functions. Government agencies, particularly those tasked with investigating sensitive or high-profile cases, must ensure that their procedures do not compromise the impartiality of the investigation. This ruling serves as a reminder that due process is not merely a technicality; it is a fundamental right that protects individuals from arbitrary or oppressive government action. Moving forward, agencies must be extra cautious about safeguarding the rights of the accused, even when pursuing legitimate objectives of public interest.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court denied the petitions and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision. The Court directed the PCGG to transmit the complaint and records of the case to the Ombudsman for appropriate action, highlighting the Ombudsman’s primary jurisdiction over cases of this nature. This transfer acknowledges the need for an impartial body to conduct a new preliminary investigation, free from the taint of the PCGG’s prior involvement. The legal precedent set forth emphasizes the judiciary’s commitment to uphold constitutional rights, even when dealing with cases involving alleged corruption or ill-gotten wealth.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the PCGG violated Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr.’s right to due process by conducting a preliminary investigation after already filing a civil case and gathering evidence against him for the same alleged acts.
What is a preliminary investigation?	A preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.
Why did the Sandiganbayan nullify the PCGG’s investigation?	The Sandiganbayan nullified the investigation because it found that the PCGG’s prior involvement in the case compromised its impartiality, violating Cojuangco’s right to due process.
What was the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision?	The Supreme Court relied on its previous ruling in Cojuangco v. PCGG, which established that the PCGG could not act as both investigator and judge in the same matter.
What happens now that the PCGG’s investigation has been nullified?	The Supreme Court directed the PCGG to transmit the complaint and records of the case to the Ombudsman for a new preliminary investigation.
What is the significance of the right to due process in this case?	The right to due process ensures a fair and impartial legal proceeding, protecting individuals from arbitrary or oppressive government action. It includes the right to an unbiased investigation.
What is the role of the Ombudsman in this case?	The Ombudsman is an independent constitutional officer with primary jurisdiction over cases of this nature. The Ombudsman will conduct a new preliminary investigation, free from the taint of the PCGG’s prior involvement.
Can a finding of probable cause cure a violation of due process?	No, a finding of probable cause cannot cure a violation of due process. A due process violation is a jurisdictional defect that renders subsequent actions void.

This case serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of upholding due process in all legal proceedings. By ensuring impartiality and fairness, the justice system can maintain its integrity and protect the rights of all individuals, regardless of the charges against them. The strict adherence to this constitutional right solidifies public trust and affirms the commitment of the Philippine legal system to equitable justice.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., G.R. No. 160864, November 16, 2016