G.R. No. 134887 - Philippine Agila Satellite, Inc. vs. Lichauco

On June 6, 1994, a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) was entered into between a consortium of private telecommunications carriers and the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) for the launching, ownership, operation, and management of a Philippine satellite by a Filipino-owned consortium.
Pursuant to Article IV of the MOU, the consortium formed Philippine Agila Satellite, Inc. (PASI).

By letter dated June 28, 1996, PASI president Rodrigo A. Silverio requested government confirmation of the assignment of orbital slots 161°E and 153°E to PASI.
On July 3, 1996, DOTC Secretary Amado S. Lagdameo, Jr. confirmed by letter the assignment of both slots to PASI.
PASI made preparations for satellite launch, including loans, capital increase, negotiations, and an initial US$ 3.5 million payment to Aerospatiale.
On December 3, 1996, PASI president Michael C. U. de Guzman wrote Landbank President Jesli Lapuz to confirm participation in an US$ 11 million loan, citing assignment of both orbital slots.

On December 5, 1996, DOTC Undersecretary Josefina T. Lichauco wrote Lapuz that only slot 161°E was available for PASI, explaining that slot 153°E had been reserved for a Russian satellite migration that failed.
Lichauco indicated that any interim satellite venture by PASI was purely commercial and emphasized that “Agila” was the President’s chosen name for the first Philippine satellite.

In December 1997, Lichauco issued a Notice of Offer for slot 153°E. PASI learned an undisclosed bidder won and filed a civil case on January 23, 1998 in the Mandaluyong RTC for injunction, nullity of award, and damages.
On February 23, 1998, PASI filed a criminal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against Lichauco for gross violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.
On April 15, 1998, the Ombudsman’s Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau (EPIB) found a “prejudicial question” due to overlap with the pending civil case and recommended dismissal.
On April 24, 1998, Ombudsman Desierto approved the recommendation; on July 17, 1998, he denied PASI’s motion for reconsideration.
The RTC denied a motion to dismiss the civil case; on February 21, 2000, the Court of Appeals dismissed it, but on May 3, 2006, the Supreme Court reinstated the civil action.
PASI then petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, challenging the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the criminal complaint.

Whether a prejudicial question exists given the parallel civil action involving the same facts and issues.
Whether the dismissal of the Ombudsman complaint on the ground of a prejudicial question was proper.