G.R. NO. 167973 -

Ruling

accordingly approved the recommendation to withdraw the Information. [8] A Manifestation with Motion to Withdraw Information In Criminal Case No. 26035 [9] was thus filed by the Office of the Ombudsman with the Sandiganbayan which was granted by Order of May 20, 2002. [10] In June 2003, then Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo (Ombudsman Marcelo) ordered the review of the original complaints against petitioner, et al. which the COA filed with his Office. Acting on the order, Prosecutor Jovito A. Coresis, Jr. (Prosecutor Coresis) reviewed the complaints and found sufficient evidence to conclude that a crime for violation of R.A. No. 3019, Section 3(e), as amended, had been committed and Redulla and his co-accused are probably guilty thereof. [11] The Office of the Ombudsman thus filed an Information [12] with the Sandiganbayan, docketed as Criminal Case No. 27853, against Redulla, et al., alleging That on or about the period from 20 October 1990 to 15 March 1991 and for sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Ipil, Zamboanga del Sur and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused Teotimo Redulla, Antionio Marques, Laksmi Palomares, Hilarion Ramos, Cirilo Salamanca and Eusebio Ybanez, all public officers being then a Regional Technical Director with salary grade 27, a Finance Officer, an Accountant, an OIC-PENRO, an OIC-CENRO and a Forestry Specialist, respectively, of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Region 9, Zamboanga City (DENR9-Zamboanga City), acting with evident bad faith and manifest partiality while in the performance of their official administrative functions and taking advantage of their public positions, mutually aiding, conniving and conspiring with each other as well as with accused Luis Tan, a private contractor, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally give unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference to accused Tan by making payments to the latter the total sum of P518,654.01 for a seedling production project despite knowledge that accused Tan was obligated, under the contract to produce 363,637 seedlings, maintain and protect them for a period of eight (8) months but that said accused Tan had failed to perform his obligation under the said contract to the damage and prejudice of the government in the aforementioned sum. Contrary to law. [13] (Emphasis in the original) Redulla thereafter filed before the Sandiganbayan a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause, [14] arguing that WITH THE ORDER OF THE HONORABLE COURT DATED MAY 20, 2003, GRANTING THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE INFORMATION IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 26035 IN RELATION TO THE OMBUDSMAN'S ORDER OF 18 FEBRUARY 2002 WHICH EXPRESSLY FOUND THAT NO PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS AGAINST ACCUSED REDULLA AND HIS CO-ACCUSED TO CHARGE THEM FOR THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019 ARISING FROM EXACTLY THE SAME FACTS AND TRANSACTION SUBJECT OF THE PRESENT INFORMATION, NO PRIMA FACIE CASE CAN BE