G.R. No. 160404 - Tolentino vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co.

Petitioner Heide M. Estandarte, then school principal of Ramon Torres National High School in Bago City, Negros Occidental, faced allegations of irregularities raised by a group of concerned teachers.
In 1998, various RTNHS teachers (Faculty and Personnel Club Officers and department heads) submitted a letter with a list of 15 alleged irregularities to the Schools Division of Bago City, requesting an investigation.

Private complainants subsequently filed two complaints against the petitioner with the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas, docketed as OMB-VIS-Crim-99-1094 and OMB-VIS-Crim-2000-1127.
The Ombudsman-Visayas forwarded one of the complaints to the City Prosecutor of Bago City for preliminary investigation pursuant to Section 31 of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989).

The City Prosecutor served the petitioner with subpoenas on August 28 and August 30, 2000, instructing her to submit a counter-affidavit.
Instead of a counter-affidavit, on September 6, 2000, the petitioner filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars with a request for an extension of time, contending that the subpoenas did not specify the criminal charges or the laws allegedly violated.
On March 10, 2000, the City Prosecutor issued an Order attaching the private complainants’ Bill of Particulars which stated charges under Sections 68 and 69 of PD 1445, and directed the petitioner to file her counter-affidavit accordingly.
The petitioner then submitted her counter-affidavit addressing only the charges explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Particulars.
Afterward, the City Prosecutor referred the case back to the Ombudsman-Visayas, which later found sufficient grounds and filed five Informations charging the petitioner under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).

In Criminal Case No. 1918, the petitioner was charged for allegedly receiving cash donations totaling P163,400.00.
In Criminal Case No. 1919, she was charged for collecting unauthorized contributions from enrollees amounting to P10.00 each.
In Criminal Case No. 1920, the charge involved the purchase and registration of guns using students’ Trust Fund, depriving the school security guard of their use.
In Criminal Case No. 1921, she was charged with double charging expenses of P1,500.00 for video coverage of the coronation night.
In Criminal Case No. 1922, she faced charge for double charging P45,000.00 in expenses incurred in the repairs of the Home Economics Building.

On May 21, 2002, the petitioner filed a Motion for Reinvestigation before the RTC, arguing that she could not be charged under sections that did not describe her functions as a collecting officer and that the alleged acts did not rise to manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
The RTC, in its Order dated September 24, 2002, denied the Motion for Reinvestigation, holding that such issues were evidentiary and warranted determination only after a full trial.
The petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration, maintaining that the Ombudsman-Visayas went beyond the Bill of Particulars voiding her right to due process.
The RTC subsequently denied the Motion for Reconsideration in its Order dated December 20, 2002.
The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by these interlocutory Orders, filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.

The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the RTC for issuing the interlocutory Orders since those were not final judgements but decisions on motions.
The case involved a discussion on whether a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 could be entertained when the underlying orders were interlocutory, and whether such orders demonstrated grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The Court indicated that despite procedural irregularities, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, procedural missteps may be disregarded in order to decide the case on its merits.

Whether the petitioner’s recourse via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is proper in light of the interlocutory nature of the orders denying her motions for reinvestigation and reconsideration.
Whether the proper remedy should have been a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead, given that the issues involve questions on jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion.

Whether the filing of the Informations by the Ombudsman-Visayas, which charged the petitioner with crimes beyond the charges specifically stated in the private complainants’ Bill of Particulars, violated her right to due process.
Whether the petitioner was properly informed of the nature and specifics of the criminal charges, especially given her claim that the subpoenas served did not specify the acts or the law allegedly violated.
Whether the erroneous act of the City Prosecutor in entertaining a Motion for Bill of Particulars, contrary to the provisions of Administrative Order No. 7, should bind the Ombudsman and consequently affect the petitioner’s ability to prepare an adequate defense.

Whether the Ombudsman-Visayas, having the power to reverse actions of the deputized prosecutor, acted properly in choosing not to be bound by the private complainants’ Bill of Particulars.
Whether the Ombudsman’s decision to file other charges not contained in the Bill of Particulars amounted to an abuse of discretion affecting the petitioner's due process rights.