MORALES, David Gil A. July 11, 20154-Manresa Practice Court & Trial Techniques

Case on Arraignment

Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Jose Ramiscal, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan and People of the PhilippinesGR No. 172476-99 - September 15, 2010

FACTS:

In 1998, the Senate Committees on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigation (Blue

Ribbon) and on National Defense and Security (collectively, Senate Blue Ribbon Committee) carried out

an extensive joint inquiry into the coup rumors and the alleged anomalies in the Armed Forces of the

Philippines-Philippine Retirement Benefits Systems (AFP-RSBS). In its Report, the Senate Blue Ribbon

Committee outlined, among others, the anomalies in the acquisition of lots in Tanauan, Batangas,

Calamba, Laguna and Iloilo City by the AFP-RSBS.  

The modus operandi in the buying of the lots was to cover the same transactions with two deeds

of sale. One deed of sale would be signed only by the seller or sellers (unilateral deed). Another deed of

sale would be signed by the seller or sellers and the buyer, AFP-RSBS (bilateral deed). These Unilateral

Deeds of Sale recorded lower consideration paid by the System to the buyer(s) than those stated in the

Bilateral Deeds. The motivation was obviously to evade payment of the correct taxes to the government

and save money for the seller(s), broker(s) and who knows, probably even for the kickbacks going to

certain officials of RSBS, the buyer. 

Pursuant to the recommendation of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to prosecute and/or

cause the prosecution of Brig. Gen. Ramiscal Jr., who had signed the unregistered deeds of sale covering

the acquisition of certain parcels of land, Ombudsman Investigators conducted a fact-finding investigation.

They executed a Joint Affidavit-Complaint, stating that based on their findings, Ramiscal, among others,

may be charged with falsification of public documents and violation of Section 3(e) and (g) of Republic Act

(R.A.) No. 3019. 

Ramiscal Jr filed his first Motion for Reconsideration dated February 12, 1999 with a

supplemental motion dated May 28, 1999 regarding the findings of the Ombudsman. With this, a panel of

prosecutors was tasked to review the records of the case, they found out that Ramiscal Jr. indeed

participated and affixed his signature on the contracts and they also found probable cause. The

Ombudsman acted positively on the findings of the prosecutor and scheduled the arraignment of

Ramiscal Jr. However, Ramiscal Jr. refused to enter a plea for petitioner on the ground that there is a

pending resolution of his second Motion for Reconsideration.

Issue:

Whether or not the second motion for reconsideration is valid and should suspend his arraignment?

Ruling:

No. The second motion for reconsideration should not suspend his arraignment. Section 7 of Rule

11 of the Rules of Court provides that only one motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation of an

approved order or resolution shall be allowed. The filing of a motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation

shall not bar the filling of the corresponding information in Court on the basis of the finding of probable

cause in the resolution subject of the motion.

The arraignment may be suspended under Section 11 of Rule 116 of the Rules of Court are:

unsoundness of mind, prejudicial question and a pending petition for review of the resolution of the

prosecutor in the DOJ in which the suspension shall not exceed 60 days. Ramiscal failed to show that any

of the instances constituting a valid ground for suspension of arraignment obtained in this case. Hence

Thus, the Sandiganbayan committed no error when it proceeded with petitioner’s arraignment, as

mandated by Section 7 of RA 8493. In this case, petitioner failed to establish that

the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when

it denied petitioner’s motion to set aside his arraignment.