Case Summary (G.R. No. 201914)
Procedural History before the Ombudsman
– January–March 2008: Petitioners file Complaint‐Affidavit and Supplemental Complaint‐Affidavit alleging violations of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft Act), falsification, malversation, illegal detention.
– February 2008: Respondents invoke prejudicial question, requesting suspension of preliminary investigation.
– October 28, 2008: Ombudsman denies prejudicial question, orders preliminary investigation, and imposes preventive suspension (up to six months without pay).
Issues Raised before the Court of Appeals
Respondents sought certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, arguing that:
- The Ombudsman should have suspended its proceedings pending resolution of G.R. No. 181311.
- The re-election of Gov. Garcia in 2007 condoned the alleged administrative faults, rendering suspension moot.
Court of Appeals’ Decision
December 22, 2011: CA grants the petition, holding that
- A prejudicial question exists because resolution of the civil case would determine the basis of criminal and administrative charges.
- The condonation doctrine applies: Gov. Garcia’s re-election twice by the electorate absolved him (and by extension co-respondents) of liability.
- The Ombudsman’s preventive suspension order is rendered moot and academic.
May 16, 2012: CA denies motions for reconsideration.
Applicable Law
– 1987 Constitution (decision date 2023)
– Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989): Sections 19 (administrative complaints) and 24 (preventive suspension)
– Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
– Local Government Code (RA 7160)
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Prejudicial Question
The Court’s November 24, 2021 decision in G.R. No. 181311 definitively resolved the civil action: the auction sale was null and void, damages were awarded, and respondent officials were absolved of personal liability in that case. A prejudicial question is moot once the civil issue has been decided. Accordingly, the CA’s suspension of Ombudsman proceedings on that ground is reversed.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Condonation Doctrine
- Condonation doctrine bars disciplining an elective official for misconduct in a prior term if reelected. Its prospective abandonment date is April 12, 2016 (Carpio Morales v. CA). Gov. Garcia’s 2007 re-election (pre-2016) condoned his administrative liability, but his death (June 13, 2016) renders further proceedings against him moot.
- Doctrine does not extend to appointed officials. Angeles, Talento, and De Mesa held non-elective positions; no sovereign will of the electorate condoned their acts. The CA erred in applying condonation to them.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Preventive Suspension
Under Section 24, R.A. 6770, the Ombudsman may suspend i
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 201914)
Antecedents
- Governor Enrique T. Garcia, Jr. served as Provincial Governor of Bataan (1992–1994; 2004–2013).
- Respondents Aurelio C. Angeles, Jr., Emerlinda S. Talento, and Rodolfo H. De Mesa held key provincial posts (Legal Officer, Treasurer OIC, Administrator).
- 2004 tax‐delinquency sale of Sunrise Paper Products’ plant, machinery, and lands, unopposed, led to provincial acquisition.
- Sunrise filed injunction (RTC Civil Case No. 8164; April 21, 2005), creditors intervened.
- June 14, 2005 compromise between province and Sunrise approved by Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
- Parties later sought dismissal for lack of compliance with Sec. 267, RA 7160; on June 15, 2007, the RTC declared the sale invalid, titles falsified, and compromise illegal.
- RTC decision challenged in G.R. No. 181311 before the Supreme Court; status quo order issued.
Ombudsman Investigation and Preventive Suspension
- Jan. 22, 2008 Complaint‐Affidavit (and March 18, 2008 Supplemental) filed by Gonzaga, Magsino, Santos charging Gov. Garcia, Angeles, Talento, De Mesa with:
• RA 3019 (§ 3(e), (g)) violations;
• Falsification of Public Documents;
• Malversation of Public Funds;
• Illegal Detention. - Respondents petitioned (Feb. 28, 2008) to hold investigation in abeyance due to prejudicial question (G.R. No. 181311).
- Oct. 28, 2008, the Ombudsman:
• Denied prejudicial‐question petition—issues in certiorari are distinct from criminal/administrative charges;
• Ordered preliminary investigation;
• Preventively suspended respondents up to six months without pay, citing risk of witnes