G.R. No. 135913 November 4, 1999
VICTORIANO B. TIROL, JR., petitioner, vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN JUSTICES CIPRIANO A. DEL ROSARIO, NARCISO S. NARIO, and ANACLETO D. BADOY (SB 3rd Division), et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Victoriano B. Tirol, Jr., then a DECS Director, was charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for alleged overpricing in the acquisition of school equipment. The charge stemmed from a COA audit which found that the procurement, approved via a negotiated contract instead of public bidding, resulted in an overprice. After the Ombudsman found probable cause and filed the corresponding Information, Tirol was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. He subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration with the Ombudsman, which was denied.
Tirol then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court ( G.R. No. 133954 ), invoking Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act), to challenge the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause. While that petition was pending, he filed a motion with the Sandiganbayan to suspend the criminal trial. The Sandiganbayan denied his motion, ruling that Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act applies only to administrative disciplinary cases, not to criminal cases. Tirol’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Tirol’s motion to suspend the criminal trial pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of his petition questioning the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court clarified the procedural remedies available from Ombudsman rulings. Following its precedent in Fabian v. Desierto, the Court held that Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 , which allows an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court, applies exclusively to orders, directives, or decisions in administrative disciplinary cases. For criminal cases, such as a finding of probable cause, the aggrieved party is not granted a statutory right of appeal under that provision.
However, the Court noted that an aggrieved party is not without recourse if the Ombudsman’s finding is tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The proper remedy is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. In this instance, Tirol had indeed filed such a petition ( G.R. No. 133954 ). Nevertheless, the pendency of that separate petition did not obligate the Sandiganbayan to suspend the criminal trial. The Court reiterated the fundamental rule that criminal prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, whether preliminary or final. While exceptions exist, as enumerated in Brocka v. Enrile, the circumstances of Tirol’s case did not fall within any recognized exception to justify suspending the proceedings. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan acted within its sound discretion in proceeding with the trial.