Tirol v. Commission on Audit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Based on a complaint filed by members of the Federated PTA Organization and the Teachers and Employees Union, the Commission on Audit (COA) conducted a general audit of the Lalawigan National High School's transactions from January 1, 1990, to April 30, 1993. The COA reported that the acquisition of equipment costing P80,000.00 was made through a negotiated contract, not public bidding, in violation of COA Circular 85-55A, resulting in overpricing of P35,100.00. COA Regional Director Santos M. Alquizalas recommended filing criminal and administrative charges against petitioner Victoriano B. Tirol, Jr. (Director III), Conchita C. Devora (Principal I), and Maria A. Alvero (Bookkeeper), who participated in the transaction. Procedural History: The Ombudsman found probable cause for violation of Section 3 (g) of Republic Act No. 3019 against the three accused and filed an information with the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner Tirol was conditionally arraigned and pleaded not guilty. He filed a motion for leave to seek reconsideration/reinvestigation by the Ombudsman, which the Sandiganbayan allowed, directing the prosecutor to re-evaluate findings within thirty days. The Office of the Special Prosecutor recommended denial, which the Ombudsman approved. Petitioner Tirol then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 133954), averring grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman. Meanwhile, the Sandiganbayan denied Tirol's motion to reset trial pending resolution of his petition with the Supreme Court, ruling that an appeal by certiorari under Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act applies only to administrative cases, not judicial ones. The Sandiganbayan's denial was reduced to writing in an order nunc pro tunc, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner assails the Sandiganbayan's denial of his motion to defer/suspend trial, arguing that continuing the trial would render his petition for review moot and academic. He contends that Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 applies to both administrative and criminal cases, and limiting it to administrative cases is absurd. He also argues that such limitation restricts the Supreme Court's power of judicial review over acts tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner's motion to defer/suspend trial pending resolution of his petition for review with the Supreme Court. Whether Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770, concerning appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court, applies to criminal cases decided by the Ombudsman, specifically regarding the finding of probable cause to indict.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to suspend trial.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Sandiganbayan's denial of the motion to suspend trial: The Court held that criminal prosecutions generally may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or final. While exceptions exist, as recognized in Brocka v. Enrile, the present case does not fall within those exceptions to warrant restraining the criminal prosecution. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the petitioner's motion to suspend trial. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's remedy was to proceed to trial, await judgment, and appeal if the decision was unfavorable. On the applicability of Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 to criminal cases: The Court reiterated its ruling in Fabian v. Desierto that Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770, which provides for an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court, applies only to administrative cases. The Court declared Section 27 unconstitutional as it expanded the Supreme Court's jurisdiction without its consent. Consequently, appeals from decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases are now taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. The law is silent on the remedy for aggrieved parties in criminal or non-administrative cases decided by the Ombudsman. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be expressly granted by law. Thus, the right of appeal under Section 27 is not granted to parties aggrieved by the Ombudsman's findings in criminal cases, such as the finding of probable cause to indict.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy when the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. However, criminal prosecutions generally may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, and a motion to suspend trial pending resolution of a petition for review of the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause may be denied if the case does not fall within recognized exceptions.