G.R. No. 146376 - RODOLFO M. AGDEPPA, VS. HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ACTING THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY, MARYDEL B. JARLOS-MARTIN, EMMANUEL M. LAUREZO AND ILUMINADO L. JUNIA, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the Order dated 6 October 1999 be set aside and that the above-entitled case be now resolved and dismissed on the basis of the records which were already complete as of September 6, 1999, with the same dispatch as the giving of due course to the complaint dated May 18, 1999 by the Order dated June 10, 1999. [20] On November 25, 1999, Castillo filed a Manifestation and Compliance with Submission, [21] acknowledging that the Complaints and Annexes, subject of the Orders dated June 10, 1999 and October 6, 1999 were one and the same; adopting and incorporating by reference his Answer dated September 1, 1999 previously filed in the case; and praying that his latest pleading be considered sufficient compliance with the Order dated October 6, 1999. On December 6, 1999, Junia, in turn, filed a Manifestation [22] in which he adopted his Reply dated September 20, 1999 to Castillos Answer dated September 1, 1999, including Annexes. Eventually, on June 14, 2000, Jarlos-Martin issued a Resolution [23] in OMB-0-99-1015, concluding as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding probable cause to indict respondents RODOLFO M. AGDEPPA and RICARDO B. CASTILLO for violation of section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act relative to the overpayment of the amount of P182,543.43 to SUPRA Construction, let, therefore, an information be filed against them in the proper court. The charge of overpayment to [SupraCon] of the amount of P1,861,945.28, representing the additional escalation cost for the subject contract is hereby DISMISSED, for insufficiency of evidence. Pursuant to Jarlos-Martins foregoing Resolution, an Information [24] dated June 14, 2000 was filed before the Quezon City RTC-Branch 91, docketed as Crim. Case No. 01-100552 , charging Agdeppa and Castillo with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Quezon City RTC-Branch 91 issued a Warrant of Arrest [25] for Agdeppa and Castilllo on May 10, 2001. Meanwhile, as his Motion to Resolve in OMB-0-99-1015 was still unacted upon by April 7, 2000, Agdeppa filed before the Office of the Ombudsman an Affidavit-Complaint against Jarlos-Martin, Laurezo, and Junia, docketed as OMB-MIL-CRIM-00-0470 . Agdeppa accused Jarlos-Martin, Laurezo, and Junia of violating Section 3(a), (e), (f), and (j) of Republic Act No. 3019; and Rule II, Section 4(a), (b), and (g) of Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 07, dated April 10, 1990, otherwise known as the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman Rules of Procedure), based on the following averments: 20. That the act of respondent Jarlos-Martin in issuing the Order dated 6 October 1999 when she was supposed to have already resolved OMB-0-99-1015 a long time ago, thus giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to respondent Junia to the damage and injury of [petitioner Agdeppa], constitutes a v