FACTS:

The petitioner, Wilfredo M. Trinidad, was charged with violation of Section 3(j) and Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in connection with the Ninoy Aquino International Airport International Passenger Terminal III Project (NAIA IPT III Project) of the Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC). The Office of the Ombudsman filed two Informations against the petitioner with the Sandiganbayan, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 28089 and 28093. In Criminal Case No. 28089, the petitioner was charged with knowingly pre-qualifying Paircargo Consortium (later incorporated into Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. or PIATCO) despite its failure to meet the financial capability standards set by law. In Criminal Case No. 28093, the petitioner was charged with granting PIATCO undue benefit through the execution of a concession agreement. The Sandiganbayan dismissed Criminal Case No. 28093, rendering it moot. The remaining issue is the merits of Criminal Case No. 28089. In this case, the petitioner is charged with violation of Section 3(j) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage. The Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause and charged the petitioner based on the finding that he willfully pre-qualified PAIRCARGO despite its failure to meet the financial capability standards set by the law. The petitioner argues that res judicata and double jeopardy should bar the reinvestigation, but the Court finds that these arguments do not apply and that the Ombudsman has the power to order a reinvestigation.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the reinvestigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman should be barred by a prior Joint Resolution.

2. Whether or not the dismissal of a case during preliminary investigation constitutes double jeopardy.

3. Whether or not the criminal complaint against the petitioner can be barred by a dismissal of a civil case between the parties.

4. Whether or not the admissibility of documents from various proceedings should be questioned at the preliminary investigation.

5. Whether or not there is a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of the criminal action.

6. Whether there is a prejudicial question in the present case

7. Whether the court has the discretionary power to stay proceedings

8. Whether the court can apply the principle of suspension of proceedings by analogy

9. Whether the Ombudsman correctly found no justification to stay the proceedings

10. Whether application by analogy can be made in the subsequent criminal case

RULING:

1. The reinvestigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman should not be barred by a prior Joint Resolution. The Ombudsman has the power to revoke, repeal, or abrogate the acts or previous rulings of a predecessor in office. New matters or evidence are not prerequisites for reinvestigation. The purpose of reinvestigation is to allow the prosecutor to review and re-evaluate the findings and evidence already submitted.

2. The dismissal of a case during preliminary investigation does not constitute double jeopardy, as preliminary investigation is not part of the trial.

3. The dismissal of a civil case does not bar the criminal prosecution of the petitioner. Criminal liability cannot be the subject of a compromise, and a compromise is not one of the grounds for the extinction of criminal liability. A criminal case is committed against the People, and the offended party may not waive or extinguish the criminal liability imposed by law.

4. The admissibility of documents from various proceedings should not be questioned at the preliminary investigation. The preliminary investigation is not the proper forum to determine the alleged breach of confidentiality of arbitration proceedings or the admissibility of documents.

5. There is no prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of the criminal action.

6. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and held that:

7. There is no prejudicial question in the present case because technically, no civil case is pending.

8. The court has the discretionary power to stay proceedings.

9. The court can only apply the principle of suspension of proceedings by analogy under certain circumstances, and the present case does not warrant such application.

10. The Ombudsman correctly found no justification to stay the proceedings.

11. Application by analogy cannot be made in the subsequent criminal case because the arbitration tribunal is not an administrative agency that could assume primary jurisdiction over matters within its competence.

PRINCIPLES:

• The Ombudsman has the power to revoke, repeal, or abrogate the acts or previous rulings of a predecessor in office.

• New matters or evidence are not prerequisites for reinvestigation; it is an opportunity to review and re-evaluate findings and evidence.

• Dismissal of a case during preliminary investigation does not constitute double jeopardy.

• Criminal liability cannot be the subject of a compromise; it is committed against the People and may not be waived or extinguished.

• The preliminary investigation is not the proper forum to question admissibility of documents from various proceedings or determine breaches of confidentiality.

• There is no prejudicial question that warrants suspension of a criminal action.

• A prejudicial question involves a civil case and a criminal case, and the resolution of the civil case is determinative of the criminal case.

• The court has the discretionary power to stay proceedings.

• The principle of suspension of proceedings by analogy may apply in certain instances where two court actions are involved and the parties and issues are the same.

• 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.

• The Ombudsman has the authority to determine probable cause and issue findings based on the interpretation of relevant laws.

• Due process requires that ample opportunity be afforded to the respondent to controvert the prima facie finding against them and move for reconsideration.