Case Digest: WILFREDO M. TRINIDAD v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, et al. 539 SCRA 415 (2007)

WILFREDO M. TRINIDAD v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, et al. 539 SCRA 415 (2007)

A judicial order issued pursuant to the court’s discretionary authority is not subject to reversal on review unless it constitutes grave abuse of discretion, a trace of which is wanting herein.
Wilfredo Trinidad is charged with two criminal cases by the Office of the Ombudsman. The first case is for knowingly pre-qualifying PIATCO despite its failure to meet the financial capability standards set by law. The second is for granting PIATCO undue benefit and advantage through the execution Third Supplement to the Amended and Restated Concession Agreement covering the NAIA IPT III Project. During the pendency of the petition, the Sandiganbayan found no probable cause to proceed with the trial in, and thus dismissed the second charge and denied the prosecution‘s motion for reconsideration by. The petition insofar as the second case is concern is effectively mooted. Trinidad argues that res judicata should apply since the Office of the Ombudsman twice found no sufficient basis to indict him in similar cases earlier filed against him. Thus, it should be interpreted in the concept of double jeopardy in criminal law. He posits that repeated investigations are oppressive and particularly points out that no new evidence was presented at the re-investigation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the order dismissing the civil case does not bar Trinidad‘s criminal prosecution.

HELD:

As for the issue of prejudicial question, the Court finds nothing that warrants the suspension of the criminal action. The essential elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. A prejudicial question arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent to the issue involved in said case and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. In other words, the jurisdiction to try and resolve the prejudicial question must be lodged in another court or tribunal.
As reflected in the elements of a prejudicial question, the concept involves a civil and a criminal case. There is here no prejudicial question to speak of for, technically, no civil case pends.
Trinidad cites, however, Quiambao v. Osorio. In that case, this Court held that the more prudent course for the trial court to have taken was to hold the ejectment proceedings in abeyance until after a determination was made by the Land Authority in an administrative case pending before it which involved the same parties and the same parcel of land. The suggested move was based on the following rule:
The court in which an action is pending may, in the exercise of a sound discretion, upon proper application for a stay of that action, hold the action in abeyance to abide the outcome of another pending in another court, especially where the parties and the issues are the same, for there is power inherent in every court to control the disposition of causes [sic] on its dockets with economy of time and effort for itself