G.R. No. 143419 - Del Rosario, Jr. vs. People

On July 19, 1991, five employees of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA), led by Atty. Musa I. Malayang, filed a letter complaint (dated July 12, 1991) with the Office of the Ombudsman.
The complaint charged petitioner Jose B. del Rosario, Jr.—then the Administrator of the NIA—with violations including:

Republic Act No. 6713 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
Provisions of the Revised Penal Code
Other related laws, rules, and regulations issued by the Commission on Audit and the Civil Service Commission

The administrative complaint was docketed as OMB-ADM-0-91-0341 while the criminal complaint was docketed as OMB-0-91-1540.

A resolution dated June 15, 1992 dismissed the criminal aspect (OMB-0-91-1540).
A subsequent review reaffirmed the dismissal in a resolution dated September 30, 1992.

Their initial motions for reconsideration were denied on December 10, 1993.
A supplemental motion for reconsideration, filed on August 2, 1994, was eventually granted in a resolution dated March 7, 1995.

As a result of the investigation, two criminal informations were filed against petitioner:

A motion by petitioner on May 23, 1995 requesting the withdrawal of the informations, which was denied.
The information in Criminal Case No. 22716 was later withdrawn by the prosecution due to insufficiency of evidence.
A separate motion by petitioner to quash the information in Criminal Case No. 22715 was dismissed by the Sandiganbayan.

Petitioner previously filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 (G.R. No. 131746) seeking to annul prior Sandiganbayan resolutions dated June 6, 1997, and December 13, 1997, which denied his motion to quash the information in Criminal Case No. 22715.
Due to non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s resolution requiring him to file a reply to the respondents’ comment, the petition was dismissed on April 12, 1999.
His subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied with finality on July 14, 1999.

Despite the pending issues, the Sandiganbayan (Fifth Division) proceeded with the pre-trial conference in Criminal Case No. 22715.
Procedural steps taken included:

Respondents filed their request for admission on January 26, 2000.
Petitioner filed a reply to the request on March 6, 2000.
Petitioner filed his own request for admission on March 2, 2000, which was later objected to by the respondents on March 10, 2000.

A pre-trial conference was conducted, leading to the issuance of a pre-trial order on May 2, 2000.
During the pre-trial, the Office of the Special Prosecutor objected to petitioner's marking of documents, contending their lack of relevance.

Petitioner contends that the earlier dismissal of his petition in G.R. No. 131746 (due to non-compliance) amounts to a decision on the merits.
He argues that this dismissal invokes the doctrine of res judicata, thereby barring him from:

Marking certain documents as his exhibits in Criminal Case No. 22715.
Raising the issue regarding the nullity and invalidity of the information in that criminal case.

Petitioner also challenges the mode of appeal, asserting that his appeal should have focused on the pre-trial order rather than the issues previously denied in G.R. No. 131746.

Whether the earlier dismissal of petitioner’s petition (G.R. No. 131746) on grounds of non-compliance constitutes a decision on the merits that effectively invokes the doctrine of res judicata.
Whether the petitioner is precluded from:

Marking documents attached to his prior petition as exhibits in Criminal Case No. 22715.
Raising anew the issue of the nullity and invalidity of the criminal information in Criminal Case No. 22715.

Whether a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the proper remedy to challenge the pre-trial order, which is an interlocutory order and does not finally determine the cause of action.