de la Cruz vs Sandiganbayan complaint arose from COA audit report showing that funds actually intended for t he renovation

of barangay halls were instead used for renovation of barangay cha pels in violation of Article VI of the Constitution and 335 of the LGC private complainants David and Aguas filed with the Omb against the several loca l officials violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 Ombudsman dismissed the case for insufficiency of evidence and prematurity complainants MRd so Omb referred the case to the Office of the Chief Legal Couns el for review and recommendation Office of the Chief Legal Counsel recommended that the corresponding inf ormation be filed against the aforesaid local officials because there is probabl e cause to hold them liable for violation of the anti-graft law hence, ombudsman issued an order directing the Office of the Special Prosecutor to filed the necessary information with the Sandiganbayan Info said: occupying different positions in the government of Tarlac City, consp iring and confederating with one another, committing the crime herein charged in relation to their office, taking advantage of their official position, acting w ith evident bad faith and manifest partiality; cause undue injury to the governm ent and give unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to a specific group o f constituents by approving and releasing the amount of P543,800.00 for the cons truction of the multi-purpose halls in barangays Sapang Tagalog, Sapang Maragul an d Dalayap in Tarlac City despite knowing fully well that what were being constru cted were chapels accused moved for reinvestigation on the ground that they were not given an oppo rtunity to be heard when the Ombudsman reversed his earlier finding of lack of P C SB granted gave prosec 20 days to reevaluate evidence and submit a report to court prosecution filed Manifestation finding PC and prayed that the case be s et for arraignment SB set for arraignment and pre-trial accused filed motions to quash/dismiss SB denied all and upheld the validity of info (sufficient, there's PC, f actual issues cannot be resolved without adversarial proceedings) MR denied: no violatino of right of accused to due process based on reco rds accused arraigned: pleaded no guilty prosecution filed motion to suspend accused pendente lite SC certiorari for SB and Omb for GAD: dismissed SB ruling: preventive suspension ordered for 90 days only Dela Cruz, Serrano, Lugtu and Pineda sought certiorari Issue: 1. WON subject criminal case was prematurely instituted considering the pendency of petitioners appeals before the COA En Banc. Pet: case based on post-audit results, PA issued notices of disallowance which t he accused appealed from and is now pending with the COA en banc. Lugtu, Dela Cr uz, Serrano were exonerated by the COA that as Accountant, Assistant Accountant and Budget Officer, respectively, they did not take part in the review of the pl ans and specifications as well as in the implementation, prosecution and supervi sion of the subject construction and/or renovation project. as to Pineda, no not ice of disallowance was ever issued to her

2. WON the Ombudsman may still reconsider his Resolution dated July 13, 1999, di

smissing the complaint, after the same has already become final and executory. Pet: Ombudsmans himself admitted that multi-purpose halls were built 3. WON the subject information is fatally defective. Pet: defective due to irregularities and due process violations during PRELIMINA RY INVESTIGATION STAGE ombudsman acted without jurisdiction when he reversed his Resolution (fi nal and exec) if complainants MRd, it was defective for failure to furnish accused wit h copies lack of authority of OMB to file 4. WON there is probable cause to prosecute petitioners and their co-accused for violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 Pet: info charges no offense