G.R. No. 141336 - RODOLFO G. VALENCIA, PEDRITO REYES, REMEDIOS MARASIGAN, BAYANI ANASTACIO, RUMULADO BAWASANTA, JOSE ENRIQUEZ, NELSON GABUTERO, JOSE GENILO, JR., JOSE LEYNES AND ALFONSO UMALI, JR., VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, 4TH DIVISION AND OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN/SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.D E C I S I O N - Supre

Ruling

Accordingly, the prosecution filed an Amended Information. [6] Petitioners filed with the Sandibangayan a Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of the Joint Resolution of the Office of the Special Prosecutor/Ombudsman, [7] which was denied in the first assailed Resolution dated June 23, 1999. [8] In the meantime, petitioners learned that in the administrative case against them docketed as OMB-ADM-1-96-0316, which involved the same subject matter as the criminal case, the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint against them after finding that the contract of loan was entered into in pursuance of the police power of the local chief executive. [9] Invoking this Resolution, petitioners filed with the Sandiganbayan a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated June 23, 1999 and/or Motion to Resolve Motion to Quash Information. [10] In the second assailed Resolution dated September 27, 1999, the Sandiganbayan denied the Motion. [11] Hence, this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, based on the following grounds: Respondent Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in not dismissing the information or in not granting the Motion to Quash information despite the fact that: a) Respondent ombudsman had already dismissed the administrative case against the petitioners regarding the same subject matter of the criminal case against the petitioners; b) The facts alleged in the information have already become moot and academic and no longer constitute an offense; c) No satisfactory reason was given by the respondent Ombudsman in delaying inordinately (close to three [3] years) the filing of the information against the petitioners. Similarly, respondent Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in the Resolution dated September 27, 1999 in holding that the dismissal of the administrative case against all the petitioners is not determinative of the outcome of the criminal case despite the facts following: a) The subject matter in both criminal and administrative cases against the same petitioners are one and the same; b) The degree of proof in criminal case is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Whereas, in administrative case the proof required is only substantial evidence; and c) Two of the reviewing prosecutors, namely: Deputy Prosecutor Roberto Kallos and Special Prosecutor Leonardo Tamayo held in the Joint Resolution dated March 23, 1999 that the criminal case against the petitioners should be dismissed, and they both concurred with the findings of GIO I Medwin Dizon, Dir. Angel Mayoralgo, Jr., and Hon. Assistant Ombudsman Abelardo Aportadera, Jr., in their Resolution dated October 8, 1996, which recommended the dismissal of the case as they found that the contract of loan entered into by the petitioners with a certain Alfredo Atienza was in pursuance of the General Welfare Clause of Section 16 of the Local Government Code. [12] In a Minute Resolut