G.R. No. 139396 - EFREN O. LOQUIAS, ANTONIO V. DIN, JR., ANGELITO L. MARTINEZ II, LOVELYN J. BIADOR, GREGORIO FACIOL, JR., VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, AND DR. JOSE PEPITO H. DALOGDOG, DR. AURORA BEATRIZ A. ROMANO, MA. TERESITA C. ABASTAR, JESSICA S. ALLAN, MA. TERESA ANIVERSARIO.

Ruling

accordingly, the appropriate Information be filed with the Sandiganbayan. [1] The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 24852. On March 15, 1999, petitioners filed a Motion for Reinvestigation with prayer to defer arraignment and pre-trial alleging that they recognize the salary increases of the health personnel as a mandatory statutory obligation but the salary increases could not be implemented because of lack of funds and the municipality had incurred overdrafts. They further argue that the failure to give salary increases and other Magna Carta benefits were due to circumstances beyond their control and not due to any manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence on their part. [2] In the Memorandum dated June 11, 1999, Special Prosecution Officer I Jacqueline J. Ongpauco-Cortel recommended the dismissal of the case which recommendation was approved by Deputy Special Prosecutor Robert E. Kallos and concurred in by Special Prosecutor Leonardo P. Tamayo. This recommendation was, however, disapproved by Ombudsman Desierto on June 18, 1999 stating in his handwriting that "(T)he crime had obviously been committed, per OMB Mindanao findings, long before the payment granting that the accused latters claim/allegation is true." [3] Meanwhile, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated June 14, 1999 of the Resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao dated June 29, 1998 alleging that there is no probable cause in holding that they violated Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. They allege that the joint affidavits of waiver executed by private complainants have made the case of the prosecution against the accused "too weak which could not even create a probable cause." [4] Petitioners further allege that the order disapproving the dismissal of the case constitutes a denial of their motion for reconsideration. [5] Alleging that the order disapproving the dismissal of the case constituted denial of the motion for reconsideration, [6] petitioners filed the present petition assailing the Resolution dated June 29, 1998 and the Memorandum dated June 11, 1999 raising the following assignment of errors: "I. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN WITH DUE RESPECT, COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN APPROVING THE RESOLUTION CHARGING THE PETITIONERS FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 PAR. (E) OF R.A. 3019 ISSUED AND APPROVED BY OMBUDSMAN FOR MINDANAO. II. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN WITH DUE RESPECT, COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DISAPPROVING THE MEMORANDUM RECOMMENDING THE DISMISSAL OF THE CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONER(S) ISSUED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, CONCURRED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR BUT DISAPPROVED BY THE OMBUDSMAN." Petitioners contend that they recognize the salary increases of the health personnel as a mandatory statutory obligation but the same could not be implemented due to lack of funds and the Municipality