ROMEO A. BELTRAN AND DANILO G. SARMIENTO, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION), OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ASST. SPECIAL PROSECUTOR III JENNIFER AGUSTIN-SE, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, AND COMMISSION ON AUDIT REPRESENTED BY DANILO SISON, ROMEO DE GUZMAN, A

Ruling

Accordingly, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman found Beltran guilty of serious dishonesty and dismissed him from government service. It also recommended that criminal charges for violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and falsification of public document under Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code be filed against Beltran and Sarmiento. However, the administrative charges against Sarmiento and Mayor Castillo were dismissed. [21] Only Beltran moved for reconsideration. [22] Upon the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman's Decision, two (2) Informations for the recommended violations were filed before the Sandiganbayan on July 28, 2011. [23] Beltran and Sarmiento later received a Notice from the Sandiganbayan selling their arraignment. However, they manifested that a Motion for Reconsideration was pending before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman and prayed that the arraignment be postponed. [24] Thus, the Sandiganbayan reset the arraignment and instructed the Office of the Special Prosecutor to comment on Beltran's Motion for Reconsideration. [25] On February 1, 2011, the Office of the Special Prosecutor issued the assailed Order. [26] It declared that the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman did not err when it gave credence to the Commission on Audit's Inspection Report over the Findings and Observations of the Fact-Finding Team and the barangay captains' Certifications. [27] However, this Order did not contain a dispositive portion. Instead, it contained a prayer at the end, which read: WHEREFORE , premises considered, there being no merit for the Motion For Reconsideration filed by Respondent Beltran, the Prosecution respectfully prays that the same be DENIED . Other just and equitable relief under the law are likewise prayed for. [28] (Emphasis in the original) Thinking that this Order was a denial of Beltran's Motion for Reconsideration, Beltran and Sarmiento filed before the Office of the Special Prosecutor a Manifestation and Motion [29] praying that the Informations filed in the Sandiganbayan be withdrawn. They claimed that the filing of the informations was premature as they still had available remedies under the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman to question the finding of probable cause. [30] Beltran and Sarmiento furnished the Sandiganbayan with a copy of this Manifestation and Motion. [31] In view of this. the Sandiganbayan again deferred the arraignment. [32] Later realizing that the Order did not contain a dispositive portion but a prayer, Beltran and Sarmiento filed a Motion to Defer Arraignment. [33] They argued that the Motion for Reconsideration remained pending as the Office of the Special Prosecutor's Order was, in essence, a comment on the Motion for Reconsideration. [34] In its Comment/Opposition, [35] the Office of the Special Prosecutor argued that its assailed Order was actually a denial of the Motion for Reconsideration and not a mere comment. [36] It insisted that as the Office of the Ombudsmans pros