Wilfredo M.

Trinidad, petitioner
vs
Office of the Ombudsman Thru the
Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo
and Deputy Ombudsman Victor
C. Fernandez, Asias Emerging
Dragon Corporation, and the
Sandiganbayan People of the
Philippines, respondents
G.R. No. 166038, December 4, 2007
Facts:
The case was a petition for certitiorari under rule 65 of the rules of court and prohibition for the
Resolution of the Ombudsman in OMB L-C-03-0786-F which the office found probable cause
on the petitioner violating the Anti-Graft and Corruption 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 petitioner was the Assistant Secretary of DOTC and member of the DOTC Pre-qualification,
Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) and DOTC Secretary in an officer-in-charge capacity, in
the criminal case no. 28089 and criminal case no. 28093, respectively.
The petition was charged in violation of Section (3)j of the Anti-Graft and Corruption practices
act on which the petitioner act of knowing 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.
Thus, the petitioner contemplate their argument Res Judicata and Double Jeopardy which
reinvestigation of the same set of facts and circumstances are investigated by the Office of the
Ombudsman.
Issue:
Whether or not there is a prejudicial question?
Whether or not
Held:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the essential elements of a prejudicial question are as
follows: a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately to the
issue raise in the subsequent criminal action, and b) the resolution of such issue determines
whether or not criminal action may proceed. Accordingly 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 is lodged in another court or tribunal, hence in this case Office of
the Ombudsman.
The Office of the Ombudsman is to correct to reinvestigate, since Anti-Graft and Corrupt
practices act is not mere civil nor criminal in nature, such action was based on the courts
discretionary power to stay proceedings. Therefor the suspension of the action is on the
discretion of the court on this case the office of the Ombudsman without jeopardizing Res
Judicia and Double Jeopardy.