G.R. No. 208928 - Ang vs. Pacunio

Enrique T. Garcia, Jr. served as Governor of Bataan (1992–1994; 2004–2013). Aurelio C. Angeles, Jr., Emerlinda S. Talento, and Rodolfo H. De Mesa were provincial legal officer, treasurer (OIC), and administrator, respectively.
In 2004, the Province of Bataan conducted a tax‐delinquency sale of Sunrise Paper Products Industries, Inc. properties. No other bidders appeared, and the province acquired the paper plant, machinery, and land.
Sunrise filed Civil Case No. 8164 (RTC Bataan) on April 21, 2005, seeking to annul the auction sale and prevent consolidation of titles. Creditors intervened. On June 14, 2005, a compromise agreement was entered into and approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
Parties moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Section 267, R.A. No. 7160. The RTC denied dismissal and, on June 15, 2007, declared the sale invalid, titles falsified, and agreement illegal. A related petition (G.R. No. 181311) challenged that decision before the Supreme Court.

On January 22 and March 18, 2008, Gonzaga, Magsino, and Santos filed complaint‐affidavits before the Ombudsman charging respondents with violations of R.A. No. 3019 Sections 3(e) & (g), falsification of public documents, malversation, and illegal detention (2004–2006).
Respondents sought to suspend the preliminary investigation on February 28, 2008, invoking a “prejudicial question” due to the pending G.R. No. 181311 civil case.
On October 28, 2008, the Ombudsman (a) denied the petition to suspend, finding no prejudicial question; (b) directed preliminary investigation; and (c) preventively suspended respondents for up to six months without pay, citing strong evidence and risk of witness intimidation or evidence tampering.
Respondents filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing condonation by reelection (2007, 2010) and prejudicial question.

On December 22, 2011, the CA reversed the Ombudsman’s orders, holding that (a) a prejudicial question required suspension of proceedings pending resolution of G.R. No. 181311; and (b) the condonation doctrine rendered moot the preventive suspension due to Gov. Garcia’s reelections.
Motions for reconsideration by petitioners and the Ombudsman were denied by CA Resolution dated May 16, 2012.

Petitioners filed G.R. Nos. 201914 and 202156 seeking review of the CA Decision and Resolution under Rule 45.
Respondents and the Ombudsman submitted opposing memoranda. Gov. Garcia died on June 13, 2016, extinguishing any criminal liability against him.

Did the CA err in suspending Ombudsman proceedings on the ground of a prejudicial question?
Did the CA err in lifting preventive suspension under the condonation doctrine?
Did the Ombudsman commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering preliminary investigation and preventive suspension?