Doromal vs. Sandiganbayan
Doromal vs. Sandiganbayan
The President, Vice-President, the Prosecutor under the 1987 Constitution and
Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or who is supposed to retain powers and duties
assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this NOT GIVEN to the Ombudsman) is clearly
Constitution, hold any other office or employment
without authority to conduct preliminary
during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure,
directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, investigations and to direct the filing of
participate in any business, or be financially interested criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan,
in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special except upon orders of the Ombudsman.
privilege granted by the Government or any ● Upon the annulment of the information
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
against the petitioner, the Special Prosecutor
including government-owned or controlled
sought clearance from the Ombudsman to
corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly
avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office. refile it. Granted clearance but advised that
"some changes be made in the information
Art. 9-B, Sec. 7. No elective official shall be eligible for previously filed."
appointment or designation in any capacity to any ● Petitioner filed a "Motion to Quash" the
public office or position during his tenure.
information for being:
Doromal vs. Sandiganbayan [G.R. No. 85468, ○ (a) invalid because there had been
September 7, 1989] no preliminary investigation; and
○ (b) defective because the facts
Summary: alleged do not constitute the offense
This is a case for review of the Sandiganbayan’s charged (Annex C).
decision of denying petitioner's motion to quash the
information against him and for the order of
The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to
suspending him from office during the pendency of
quash in its orders.
the case.
Facts: Issues:
Quintin S. Doromal, a former Commissioner of the
1. WON the act of Doromal would
Presidential Commission on Good Government
constitute a violation of the
(PCGG), is under special investigation for violation of
Constitution.
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019),
2. WON preliminary investigation is
Sec. 3(H), in connection with his shareholdings and
necessary even if both information
position as president and director of the Doromal
involve the same subject matter.
International Trading Corporation (DITC) which
3. WON the information shall be
submitted bids to supply P61 million worth of
effected as invalid due to the
electronic, electrical, automotive, mechanical and air
absence of preliminary investigation.
conditioning equipment to the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports (or DECS) and the Held:
National Manpower and Youth Council (or NMYC).
1. Yes. Article 7, Section 13 and Article 9-B,
● An information was then filed by the Sec. 7.
“Tanodbayan” against Doromal for the said WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition
violation and a preliminary investigation was is granted. The Sandiganbayan shall immediately
conducted. remand Criminal Case No. 12893 to the Office of the
● The petitioner then filed a petition for Ombudsman for preliminary investigation and shall
certiorari and prohibition questioning the hold in abeyance the proceedings before it pending the
jurisdiction of the “Tanodbayan” to file the result of such investigation. The preventive suspension
information without the approval of the of the petitioner is hereby lifted. No costs.
Ombudsman. 2. The right of the accused to a preliminary
● This Court annulled the information because investigation is "a substantial one." Its denial
the incumbent Tanodbayan (called Special over his opposition is a "prejudicial error, in
that it subjects the accused to the loss of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law"
provided by the Constitution.
3. he absence of preliminary investigation does
not affect the court's jurisdiction over the
case. Nor do they impair the validity of the
information or otherwise render it defective;
but, if there were no preliminary investigations
and the defendants, before entering their
plea, invite the attention of the court to their
absence, the court, instead of dismissing the
information should conduct such
investigation, order the fiscal to conduct it or
remand the case to the inferior court so that
the preliminary investigation may be
conducted.