G.R. No. 180681; March 18, 2013
ROLANDO Z. TIGAS, Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, represented by MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, in her capacity as Ombudsman, Respondent.

FACTS

The Municipality of Samal, Bataan, through its Sangguniang Bayan (SB) members and then-Mayor Rolando Z. Tigas, purchased lots for a public market. A check for ₱2,923,000 was issued to the seller, but only ₱2,500,000 was delivered, with a further ₱90,000 deduction for capital gains tax, leaving an unaccounted ₱513,000. Tigas was implicated for signing the Deed of Conditional Sale before the SB authorized the purchase, accepting the offer before a provincial appraisal, and allegedly influencing the assessor to appraise the lot at ₱105 per square meter despite a lower bank appraisal. Following an NBI investigation initiated by an anonymous letter, a complaint was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019).
The Ombudsman, after preliminary investigation where then-Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez inhibited herself, found probable cause to indict Tigas and the SB members for violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. 3019, a charge different from the initial complaint. An Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan, which denied Tigas’s motion to quash and ordered his suspension pendente lite. Tigas filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman due to bias—citing the Ombudsman’s brother as a political rival—and procedural irregularities, and assailing the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the Office of the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion and acted with manifest partiality in finding probable cause against petitioner; and (2) whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in refusing to quash the Information and in imposing a suspension pendente lite.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed resolutions. On the first issue, the Court held that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The claim of bias was belatedly raised and unsupported. The inhibition of Ombudsman Gutierrez negated any prejudice. The Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause for a different offense (Section 3(b) instead of the initially charged sections) was permissible, as established in Galario v. Office of the Ombudsman, provided it was warranted by the evidence, which it was. The appreciation of documentary evidence by the Ombudsman, NBI, and Sandiganbayan showed the finding was not whimsical or arbitrary.
On the second issue, the Sandiganbayan did not gravely abuse its discretion. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an improper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash, as such an order is interlocutory and not appealable. The proper recourse is to proceed to trial. Furthermore, the suspension pendente lite was mandatory under Section 13 of R.A. 3019 upon a valid Information alleging an offense under that law. The Court emphasized that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal and cannot be used to correct procedural errors or review interlocutory orders. Consequently, all challenged resolutions were upheld.