JUSTICE ROBERTO ABAD: THE PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE VALIDITY OF THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION.

In Alfredo Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court held that there is no reason which exists for suspending or interrupting the conduct of the forfeiture proceedings before the Sandiganbayan.  It stated that it cannot subscribe to the Romualdezes’ claim that they are entitled to a new preliminary investigation since they had no opportunity to take part in the one held in 1991, in OMB-0-91-0820. The High Court aptly pointed out that:

Respondents admit that the subpoena for that investigation had been sent to their last known residence at the time it was conducted. The Republic also categorically insists that the appropriate subpoena had been served on the Romualdezes. Accordingly, the Ombudsman could not be faulted for proceeding with the investigation of the Romualdezes’ cases when they did not show up despite notice being sent to them at their last known residence.

The New Rules on Criminal Procedure "does not require as a condition sine qua non to the validity of the proceedings [in the preliminary investigation] the presence of the accused for as long as efforts to reach him were made, and an opportunity to controvert the evidence of the complainant is accorded him.

The obvious purpose of the rule is to block attempts of unscrupulous respondents to thwart the prosecution of offenses by hiding themselves or by employing dilatory tactics" (Mercado v. Court of Appeals, 315 Phil. 657, 662 (1995). In sum, there is no reason for suspending or interrupting the conduct of the forfeiture proceedings before the Sandiganbayan. (ALFREDO T. ROMUALDEZ vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 16160, July 13, 2010, ABAD, J.).