G.R. No. 161929 - Dela Cruz vs. Sandiganbayan

This case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioners—Lynn Paz T. Dela Cruz, Fernando Serrano, Nathaniel Lugtu, and Janet S. Pineda—against resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.
The case centers on the preventive suspension of the accused under Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019, which mandates suspension pending criminal prosecution for alleged violations of the anti-graft law.
The petitioners challenge the suspension and other related orders on the ground that the issues have been previously decided and that there are procedural irregularities affecting the validity of the information charged against them.

The criminal complaint arose from a construction and/or renovation project involving several multi-purpose halls in various barangays of Tarlac City.
A post audit by the Provincial Auditor of the Commission on Audit (COA) led to the issuance of notices of disallowance, on January 29, 1999, and July 22, 1999. These notices asserted that the actual construction was of barangay chapels in violation of constitutional and statutory prohibitions against the use of public funds for religious purposes.
Private complainants—Jesus B. David and Ana Alamo Aguas—filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman on February 6, 1998, against several local government officials. The allegations revolved around the alleged misuse of funds and the conversion of public expense into a project that served private (religious) purposes.

The Ombudsman initially dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence in a July 13, 1999 Resolution but later, upon reconsideration by private complainants, reversed his dismissal.
On May 16, 2000, the Ombudsman ordered the filing of the necessary information with the Sandiganbayan against the accused officials, asserting a probable cause for violation of the anti-graft law.
The Sandiganbayan docketed the case as Criminal Case No. 26042. Following motions for reinvestigation and a subsequent manifestation of probable cause by the prosecution, the Sandiganbayan set the case for arraignment and pre-trial in August 2001.
Multiple motions by the accused sought to quash the information or dismiss the case; the Sandiganbayan denied these motions in its April 24, 2003 Resolution, affirming that the allegations were sufficient to charge the accused.
The accused further filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied in a June 2, 2003 Resolution. On December 8, 2003, the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution ordering the preventive suspension of the accused for 90 days, and on February 5, 2004, a motion for reconsideration of this suspension was denied.
Petitioners later resorted to filing another petition before the Supreme Court, challenging the validity of the earlier resolutions and re-litigating issues already passed upon in a previous consolidated petition (G.R. No. 158308).

Whether the criminal case was instituted prematurely considering that petitioners had pending appeals before the COA En Banc.
Whether filing the criminal case based on COA’s post-audit findings on allegedly misused public funds, which had already been appealed, was erroneous.

Whether the Ombudsman had jurisdiction to reconsider his July 13, 1999 Resolution dismissing the complaint after it had become final and executory.
Whether the subsequent filing of the information by the Ombudsman was valid considering issues related to the finality of his initial resolution.

Whether the subject information is fatally defective due to the alleged procedural irregularities and due process violations during the preliminary investigation.
Whether the failure to furnish copies of the motion for reconsideration to all accused vitiates the information filed under the anti-graft law.

Whether, based on the admitted or undisputed facts, there exists probable cause to prosecute petitioners and co-accused for violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019.
Whether the allegations regarding the alleged misappropriation of funds and the conversion of multi-purpose halls to chapels sufficiently constitute an offense.

Whether the issues previously decided by the Sandiganbayan and affirmed in G.R. No. 158308 can be re-litigated in the current petition.
Whether the principle of the law of the case precludes the parties from challenging settled rulings.