G.R. No. 251177 - Non vs. Office of the Ombudsman

Alfredo J. Non, Gloria Victoria C. Yap-Taruc, Josefina Patricia A. Magpale-Asirit, and Geronimo D. Sta. Ana were Commissioners of the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), with Magpale-Asirit an incumbent Commissioner at the time noted in the record.
Alyansa Para sa Bagong Pilipinas (ABP) challenged ERC issuances and filed both a petition before the Court and complaints with the Office of the Ombudsman.

The ERC issued Resolution No. 13, Series of 2015 requiring Distribution Utilities to conduct a Competitive Selection Process (CSP) for Power Supply Agreements.
The ERC issued Resolution No. 1, Series of 2016, moving the effectivity of Resolution No. 13–2015 from November 2015 to April 2016.
On November 3, 2016, ABP filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (with urgent prayer for TRO) assailing Resolution No. 1–2016 and the CSP Guidelines, docketed as G.R. No. 227670.
On November 23, 2016, ABP filed a verified complaint with the Ombudsman against petitioners and Jose Vicente B. Salazar for multiple offenses, yielding administrative docket OMB-C-A-16-0438 (leading to G.R. No. 237586) and criminal docket OMB-C-C-16-0497 (leading to G.R. Nos. 239168, 240288, and G.R. No. 251177).

On September 29, 2017, the Ombudsman issued a Resolution in OMB-C-C-16-0497 finding probable cause to charge petitioners and Salazar for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
The Ombudsman filed a Criminal Information before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City, alleging that from November 6, 2015 to April 30, 2016 petitioners conspired to give unwarranted benefits to MERALCO by modifying the implementation date of Resolution No. 13–2015, thereby favoring MERALCO and its affiliates; the Information was docketed as Criminal Case No. R-PSG-18-01280-CR and raffled to Branch 155, RTC Pasig City.

On July 11, 2018 petitioners filed a Motion to Quash before RTC Pasig City, asserting lack of jurisdiction pursuant to R.A. No. 10660 (effective 2015), which amended Sandiganbayan jurisdiction provisions and provided that cases falling under RTC jurisdiction under its Section 4 be tried in a judicial region other than where the official holds office.
On September 10, 2018 the respondent judge denied the Motion to Quash and scheduled arraignment; the judge reasoned that, absent Supreme Court rules implementing R.A. No. 10660, default venue rules under Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure applied because the ERC office is seated in Ortigas, Pasig City.
Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration was denied on October 22, 2018.
Petitioners were arraigned on November 21, 2018 and pleaded not guilty; pre-trial was set for February 13, 2019; the prosecution had not commenced presentation of evidence due to petitioners’ motion to suspend proceedings.

(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the respondent judge gravely erred in denying petitioners’ Motion to Quash Information because, under R.A. No. 10660, the RTC Pasig City lacked jurisdiction and the criminal case must be tried by a Regional Trial Court in a judicial region other than the National Capital Judicial Region where the accused holds office.

Whether direct recourse to the Court by petition for certiorari unde...(Subscriber-Only)