GR 134887; (July, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 134887 ; July 27, 2006
PHILIPPINE AGILA SATELLITE, INC. represented by MICHAEL C. U. DE GUZMAN, petitioner, vs. SEC. JOSEFINA TRINIDAD LICHAUCO and the HON. OMBUDSMAN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Philippine Agila Satellite, Inc. (PASI) was formed by a consortium pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding with the DOTC for a satellite project. In July 1996, then DOTC Secretary Lagdameo confirmed in writing the government’s assignment of two specific orbital slots to PASI. Relying on this, PASI undertook significant financial and business preparations. In December 1996, however, DOTC Undersecretary Josefina Lichauco, in a letter to a bank, repudiated the assignment, stating only one slot was available and that PASI’s claim was false. She later issued a Notice of Offer for the disputed orbital slot in 1997.
PASI filed a civil case for injunction and damages against Lichauco and an unknown awardee. It also filed a criminal complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman, charging Lichauco with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 for causing undue injury through manifest partiality or bad faith. The Ombudsman dismissed the criminal complaint, citing the existence of a prejudicial question, as the issues were intimately related to the pending civil case. PASI filed this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint based on the existence of a prejudicial question.
RULING
Yes, the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that a prejudicial question, as defined in the Rules of Court, arises only in a criminal case where the resolution of an issue in a related civil action is so logically antecedent that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. Here, the civil case for injunction and damages filed by PASI is not a prejudicial question to the criminal complaint for graft. The elements of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019—such as causing undue injury or giving unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross negligence—are separate and distinct from the issues of contract validity or orbital slot ownership in the civil suit. The criminal liability can be determined independently of the outcome of the civil case. The Ombudsman’s dismissal, therefore, was not based on a correct application of the legal concept of a prejudicial question. The Court set aside the dismissal and ordered the Ombudsman to reinstate the criminal case for further proceedings.