011 TIROL vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (LAGUILLES) under Rule 43.

under Rule 43. Although the law is silent on remedy of an aggrieved party in case
November 4, 1999 | Pardo, J. | Rule 43 the Ombudsman found sufficient cause for indictment in criminal or non-admin
cases, the Court cannot supply such deficiency if none has been provided in the
PETITIONER: Heirs of Jose Esplana law. However, the aggrieved party is not without recourse since where the finding
RESPONDENTS: CA and Heirs of Pedro De Lima of the Ombudsman as to the existence of probable cause is tainted with grave
abuse of discretion, the aggrieved may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
SUMMARY: Based on a complaint filed by members of two groups, the
Federated PTA Organization and the Teachers and Employees Union, the COA It should also be stressed that there is pending before the SC a petition for review
conducted a general audit of the transactions of the Lalawigan National High under Rule 45 questioning the finding of probable cause by the Ombudsman.
School. COA reported that the acquisition of some equipment was made through What is at issue in this petition for certiorari is the propriety of the
a negotiated contract and not by public bidding in violation of COA Circular 85- Sandiganbayan’s denial of the motion to suspend trial pending resolution of the
55A, resulting in overpricing. COA recommended to the Deputy Ombudsman the certiorari case. The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
filing of criminal and administrative charges against the responsible personnel. denying the motion to suspend trial in the criminal case. As a rule, criminal
After preliminary investigation, they found that there was probable cause for the prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or final.
indictment of petitioner Tirol, the Regional Director of DECS. The Ombudsman While there are exceptions to this (case did not mention the exceptions), this case
filed with the Sandiganbayan an information for violation of Section 3(g) of RA does not fall within the exceptions to warrant restraining the criminal prosecution.
3019. Upon Tirol’s motion for permission to travel abroad on official business,
the Sandiganbayan conditionally arraigned him without prejudice to the filing of DOCTRINE: All appeals from decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative
an MR with the Ombudsman. Tirol pleaded not guilty. disciplinary cases may be taken to the CA via Rule 43, and not under the
Ombudsman Act.
TIMELINE:
January 2 – Tirol filed a motion for leave to seek reconsideration/reinvestigation.
May 22 – Denial of Tirol’s motion
July 17 – Tirol filed with the SC a petition for review for the alleged grave abuse
of discretion by the Ombudsman in concluding that he was liable for overpricing.
August 24 – Arraignment
September 2 – Tirol filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion to reset trial pending
resolution of the petition for review on certiorari filed with the SC.
September 4 – Sandiganbayan denied the motion to reset trial.
September 22 – Reduced the ruling in writing by an order nunc pro tunc; ordered
pretrial as scheduled; ruled that appeal by certiorari to the SC under Sec 27 of the
Ombudsman Act refers only to admin cases decided by the Ombudsman, not
judicial cases filed with the court.
September 14 – Tirol moved for MR
October 13 – MR denied.

Issue: WoN the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying

his motion to defer/suspend trial pending the disposition of the earlier petition for
review with the SC.

The Court ruled in the negative. Although Sec 27 of RA 6770 provides that
orders, directives and decisions of the Ombudsman in admin cases are appealable
to the SC via Rule 45, in Fabian vs. Desierto, the Court declared that Section 27
is unconstitutional because it expanded the SC’s jurisdiction, without its advice
and consent, which is contrary to the constitution. Hence, all appeals from
decisions of the Ombudsman in admin disciplinary cases may be taken to the CA