(case no.

18)

Rodrigo v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 125498
February 18, 1999
Art. III

Facts:

On 15 June 1992, the Municipality of San Nicolas, represented by Mayor Rodrigo, entered
into an agreement with Philwood Construction for the electrification of Barangay Caboloan, San
Nicolas, for the sum of P486,386.18. A few months after entering into the agreement, Mejica, the
Planning and Development Coordinator of San Nicolas, prepared an Accomplishment Report,
stating that the said project was 97.00% complete.
On 14 August 1993, petitioners received a Notice of Disallowance from the Provincial Auditor
of Pangasinan, as it was found that upon evaluation of the electrification project, only 60% of the
project was actually accomplished.
In September 1993, petitioners requested the Provincial Auditor to lift the notice of
disallowance and to re-inspect the project. The Provincial Auditor did not act on petitioners
requests and filed a criminal case (estafa) against the petitioners.
Petitioners filed a motion to quash the information which was subsequently denied said
motion in an Order dated 18 March 1996.
On 18 March 1996, the prosecution moved to suspend petitioners pendente lite. Petitioners
opposed the motion, but such motion was denied and the suspension pendent lite was ordered.

Issues:

1. Whether petitioners right to due process was violated by the filing of the complaint against
them by the Provincial Auditor
2. Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in filing the information
against petitioners.

Ruling:

1. No.
The Provincial Auditor may institutes a complaint so long as there are sufficient grounds
to support the same. The right to due process of the respondents to the complaint, insofar
as the criminal aspect of the case is concerned, is not impaired by such institution. The
respondents will still have the opportunity to confront the accusations contained in the
complaint during the preliminary investigation. They may still raise the same defenses
contained in their motion to lift the disallowance, as well as other defenses, in the
preliminary investigation.

2. No.
This Court, moreover, has maintained a consistent policy of non-interference in the
determination of the Ombudsman regarding the existence of probable cause, provided there

Prepared by: Gio Raymond Ceniza

(case no. 18)

is no grave abuse in the exercise of such discretion. Petitioners have failed to establish any
such abuse on the part of the Ombudsman.

Petition is dismissed and the Temporary Restraining Order lifted.

Prepared by: Gio Raymond Ceniza