REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SANDIGANBAYAN
QUEZON CITY

SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE Criminal Case No. SB-17-

PHILIPPINES, CRM-OI68
Plaintiff, For: Violation of Section 3 (e) of
Republic Act No. 3019

- versus-
Present:

CABOTAJE-TANG, P.J.,
Chairperson,
FERNANDEZ, S.J., J. and
DANILO REYES CRISOLOGO, FERNANDEZ, B., J. 1
et aZ.
Promulgated:
Accused.

~/~}~

1[------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1[

RESOLUTION
CABOTAJE-TANG, P.J.:

For resolution is accused Danilo R. Crisologo's «Motion for

Reconsideration (of the Resolution dated September 26 2018)"
J

dated October 19,2018.2

Accused Crisologo insists that the present case against him

be dismissed because the Office of the Ombudsman, in its
Resolution dated April 30, 2018, dismissed a criminal complaint

ernandez was a signatory to the assailed Resclution. Sittin~i~

III
member of the Third Division as per Administratlve
z pp. 1011-1013, Record
Order No. 262-2018 doted Apr!l 30, 2018.
~ I
Resolution -2-
Criminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-0168
People vs. Crisologo, et al.

x----- ---- ----- ----- --- ----- ------------- -- -------- ----- x

against him which purportedly involved the same set of

documentary evidence as the present cases."

He argues that although the case of Crespo v. Mogu14

teaches that the disposition of a case rests on the sound
discretion of the Court after an Information. is filed with it, the
case of Alawiya v. Court of Appeaf.s5 nevertheless provides
certain exceptions wherein the Court may ultimately resolve the
existence or non-existence of probable cause by examining the
records of the preliminary investigation. Accused-movant
Crlsologo enumerates the said exceptions, to wit:

a. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional

rights of the accused;

b. When necessary for the orderly administration of

justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of
actions;

c. When there is a prejudicial question which is sub'

judice;

d. When the acts of the officer are without or In

excess of authority;

e. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law,

ordinance or regulation;

f. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;

g. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the

offense;

h. Where it is a case of persecution rather than

prosecution;

1. Where the charges are manifestly false and

motivated by the lust for vengeance;

3 p. 1011, Id

4151 SCRA462 (1987)

?7~
5 585 SCRA 267 (2009)

4
Resolution -3-
Criminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-0168
People vs. Crisologo, et al.

x------- -- -------------- ---- ----- ----------------- ---- --x

J. When there is clearly no prima facie case against

the accused and a motion to quash on that ground
has been denied; [and]

k. Preliminary injunction has been issued by the

Supreme Court to prevent the threatened unlawful
arrest of petitioners.e

Accused-movant Crisologo further avers that he is invoking

his "constitutional right to be adequately protected by the Court by
way of ultimately resolving the existence or non-existence of
probable cause by examining the records of the preliminary
investigation." Thereby, foregoing the need to go through the
rigors of a criminal trial. 7

Lastly, accused-movant Crisologo submits that the present

case is a product of multiple cases filed against him which are
being tried by the other divisions of this Court. According to him,
there is a clear intent to oppress and persecute him because he
is made to face multiple trials.s

In its "Opposition. [Re: Accused Danilo R. Crisologo's Motion

for Reconsideration dated 19 October 2018J" dated November 12,
2018,9 the prosecution argues that the present motion filed by
the accused-movant should be denied outright for being pro-
forma.!" It contends that the said motion was not set for hearing
as required by Rule 15, Section 4 of the Rules of Court and the
accused-movant failed to make a reference to any specific portion
of the Court's questioned Resolution that is supposedly
inconsistent with any law or jUrisprudence~

~
6 pp. 1011-1012, Id
7 p. 1012, Id

8 p. 1012, Id

9 pp. 1014-1019, Id
10 p. 1015, Id

11 p. 1015, Id
Resolution -4-
Criminal Case No. SB-l7-CRM-0168
People vs. Crisologo, et al.

x------------------------ -------------------------------x

At any rate, the prosecution submits that accused-movant

Crisologo's present motion deserves .scant consideration based on
the followingreasons:

4. 1 First, accused Crisologo cannot argue that the

Office of the Ombdusman's 30 April 2018 Resolution in
the case docketed as OMB-C-C-16-0013 ("2018
Ombudsman Resolution") is a "subsequent finding" that
should be upheld in lieu of the Office of the
Ombudsman's 08 April 2016 Resolution in the cases
docketed as OMB-C-C-14-0059 and OMB-C-A-14-0051
("2016 Ombudsman Resolution"). The preliminary
investigation that ultimately resulted in the issuance of
the 2018 Ombudsman Resolution was not a
continuation, nor a reopening, of the cases docketed as
OMB-C-C-14-0059 and OMB-C-A-14-0051. Hence,
while it was issued at a subsequent date, the 2018
Ombudsman Resolution was not a reversal,
abandonment, or overturning of the 2016 Ombudsman
Resolution, as this Honorable Court observed.t? There is
therefore no reason to favor one Ombudsman Resolution
over the other, for they proceeded from independent
cases.

4.2 Second, this Honorable Court correctly ruled that

upon finding probable cause in the instant cases.P any
subsequent disposition thereof now rests in its sound
discretion. 14 Hence, even assuming that the 2018
Ombudsman Resolution bears on the instant cases at
all, this Honorable Court cannot be bound by it. IS
Regardless of the findings and disposition of the 2018
Ombudsman Resolution, trial can continue if this
Honorable Court, based on its own independent
judgment, is convinced of the existence of probable
cause and the need to continue with the full
presentation of the parties' evidence.

12 Footnote omitted ~~
13 Footnote omitted
14 Footnote omitted
15 Footnote omitted
Resolution -5-
Criminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-0168
People vs. Crisologo, et al.

x--- ------ --- -------------------------------------------x

4.3 Third, accused Crisologo's reliance on Alawiya v.

Court of Appeals= is misplaced. For one, Alawiya
involves the reversal by the Secretary of Justice of a
resolution of indictment approved by the Chief State
Prosecutor- a procedure sanctioned under the National
Prosecution Service's Rules on Appeal. Here, as argued
supra, there is no review, abandonment, or overturning
of the 2016 Ombudsman Resolution. To reiterate, OMB-
C-C-16-0013 is not a continuation of OMB-C-C-14-
0059 and OMB-C-A-14-0051.17

Moreover, the prosecution also points out that (1] accused-

movant Crisologo merely enumerated the exceptional cases laid
down by the Supreme Court in Alawiya without providing any
explanation why the above-mentioned case squarely applies to
the present case;lB [2] the purported constitutional right invoked
by accused-movant Crisologo, i.e., "to be adequately protected by
the court," is vague and non-existent;'? and, [3] the pendency of
the other cases against the accused-movant before the other
divisions of this Court cannot be considered as proof that he is
being persecuted and/or oppressed.s?

Finally, the prosecution submits that assuming arguendo

that the case of Alawiya is applicable to the present case, the
Supreme Court in the said case merely requires courts to
determine the existence of probable cause ((by examining the
records of the preliminary investigation." The prosecution notes
that this is exactly what the Court did in this case when it
reviewed the records of the preliminary investigation in Cases
Nos. OMB-C-C-14-0059 and OMB-C-A-14-0051 which were the
cases that became the basis of the filing of the herein
Information.2~

16 Footnote omitted
17 pp. 1015-1016, Id
18 p. 1016, Id

19 p. 1016, Id

20 p. 1016-1017, Id

21 p. 1017, Id
Resolution -6-
Criminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-0168
People vs. Crisologo, et al.

x-------------------------------------------------------x

THE RULING OF THE COURT

The Court finds no merit in the subject motion.

As aptly pointed out by the prosecution, the Resolution

dated April 30, 2018, of the Office of the Ombudsman in Case
No. OMB-C-C-16-0013 was neither a continuation nor was a re-
opening of the Resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman in
Case No. OMB-C-C-14-0059, which found probable cause
against the herein accused for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A.
No. 3019. In its questioned Resolution promulgated on
September 26, 2016,22 the Court held that there is nothing in
the Office of the Ombudsman's Resolution dated April 30,2018,
in Case No. OMB-C-C-16-0013, which indicates that it
abandoned, or overturned its finding of probable cause against
the herein accused in Case No. OMB-C-C-14-0059 which is the
subject of this case, thus:

Indeed, in its Resolution dated April 30, 2018,23

the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint
filed by the Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the Office
of the Ombudsman on December 22, 2015, against
accused-movant Crisologo, accused Roberto L. Manlavi,
respondent Louise L. Cabahug and respondent
Generoso R. Quintalan for lack of probable cause.
However, a reading of the said resolution reveals
that the Office of the Ombudsman did not abandon
or overturn its findings in its Joint Resolution
dated April 8, 2016, and Order dated June 29,
2016, in Case No. OMB-C-C-14-0059 which is the
subject of this case.s«

Neither does the case of Alawiya, et al., v. Court of

Appeals, et al,25 help the cause of the accused-movant.

22 pp. 681-685, Id
23 pp. 614-627, Id
24 p. 4, Resolution; p. 684, Record; Emphasis supplied
~
2S 585 SeRA 267 (2009)
Resolution -7-
Criminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-0168
People vs. Crisologo, et al.

x------------------------------- ----------- ----- ------ --x

In Alawiya, the Supreme Court held that once the

Information is filed with the trial court, any disposition of the
Information rests on the sound discretion of the court. In fact, the
High Tribunal in the said case categorically mandated trial
courts to make an independent evaluation andj or assessment of
the existence or non -existence of probable cause against an
accused after an Information is filed with it, thus:

There is no clear showing that the present case

falls under any of the recognized exceptions. Moreover,
as stated earlier, once the information is filed with
the trial court, any disposition of the information rests
on the sound discretion of the court. The trial court is
mandated to independently evaluate or assess the
existence of probable cause and it may either agree
or disagree with the recommendation of the
Secretary of Justice. The trial court is not bound to
adopt the resolution of the Secretary of
-Justice.s» Reliance alone on the resolution of the
Secretary of Justice amounts to an abdication of
the trial court's duty and jurisdiction to determine
the existence of probable cause.27

Considering that the Information has already

been filed with the trial court, then the trial court,
upon filing of the appropriate motion by the
prosecutor, should be given the opportunity to
perform its duty of evaluating, independently of the
Resolution of the Secretary of Justice
recommending the withdrawal of the Information
against the accused, the merits of the case and
assess whether probable cause exists to hold the
accused for trial for kidnapping for ransom.es

To be clear, this is precisely what the Court did in this case.

In its challenged Resolution promulgated on September 26, 2018,
the Court held that after the present Information was filed with it,

26 Footnote omitted
~
27 Footnote omitted
28 Footnote omitted; Emphasis supplied
Resolution -8-
Criminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-0168
People vs. Crisologo, et al.

x-------------------------------------------------------x

the Court carefully reviewed the records of this case and found
the existence of probable cause against the accused, viz:

To begin with, the present case stemmed from a

Resolution dated April 8, 2016,29 issued by the Office of
the Ombudsman finding probable cause to indict
accused-movant Crisologo and accused Manlavi for
violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019.30 After the
present Information. was filed with it, the Court carefully
reviewed the records of this case and found the
existence of probable cause against the herein
accused.P!

In the same vein, the Court is of the view that accused-

movant Crisologo's claim of "the protection of the Court by way of
ultimately resolving the existence or non-existence of probable
cause by examining the records of the preliminary investigation"
had been fully satisfied when the Court reviewed the records of
this case and found the existence of probable cause against him
and his eo-accused in its' Resolution promulgated on February
13,2017.32

On another point, just like the petitioners in Alawiya, the

Court finds that accused-movant Crisologo failed to provide any
clear and/ or convincing proof which shows that the case against
him squarely falls within any of the said exceptions enumerated
by the Supreme Court in the said case. In fact, the accused-
movant simply made an enumeration of the above-mentioned
exceptions in his present motion without even specifying the
exception that is purportedly applicable to this case.

Finally, accused-movant Crisologo's assertion that "there is

a clear intent to oppress and persecute" him and subject him to
multiple trials remains unsubstantiated. To be sure, absent any

~
30 The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the Field Investigation Office of the Office of the Ombudsman ~~
on February 7,2014 I' I~
31 p. 208, Id; Resolution promulgated on February 13,2017; p. 3, Resolution; p. 683, Record .
32 p. 208, Record
Resolution -9-
Criminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-0168
People vs. Crisologo, et al.

x-------------------------------------------------------x

clear and convincing proof, such allegation deserves no weight in

law. Moreover, it must be noted that the mere fact that he is
facing various criminal cases before the other divisions of this
Court is insufficient to show that he is being persecuted andj or
oppressed.

In sum, the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman in

Case No. OMB-C-C-16-0013 is not controlling in this case. To
repeat, the Court already made an independent determination of
the existence of probable cause against the accused in this case
after a review of the records thereof. Applying settled
jurisprudence, the disposition of the present case should only be
lodged within the Court's exclusivejurisdiction and competence=
after a consideration of the evidence submitted by the parties.

WHEREFORE, accused Danilo R. Crisologo's "Motion. for

Reconsideration (of the Resolution dated September 26) 2018)"
dated October 19, 2018, is DENIED for lack of merit and for
being pro-forma.

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City, Metro Manila

33 See Crespo v. Mogul, 151 SeRA 462 (1987); Fuentes v. Sandiganbayan, 494 SCRA 478 (2006);.Martinez
v. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 575 (1994)

,/
 Resolution -10-
Criminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-0168
People vs. Crisologo, et al.

x-------------------------------------------------------x

WE CONCUR: