P h i l A g i l a S a t e l l i t e v .

L i c h a u c o f r o m t h e n e t n o t m i n e
m e h n F A C T S :
On June 6, 1994, a Memorandum of Understanding1 (MOU) was entered into by
a consortium of privatetelecommunications carriers and the Department of Transportation
and Communications (DOTC), they formed acorporation and adopted the corporate name
Philippine Agila Satellite, Inc. (PASI). They requested the then DOTCSecretary Amado S.
Lagdameo, Jr. for official government confirmation of the assignment of Philippine orbital
slots 161Eand 153E to PASI for its AGILA satellites by a letter dated June 28, 1996.When
it was confirmed, PASI undertook preparations for the launching, operation and
management of its satellites by,among other things, obtaining loans, increasing its capital,
conducting negotiations with its business partners, and makingan initial payment. When
they requested the Land banks confirmation of its participation in a club loan for
thegovernments assignment to PASI of orbital slots 161E and 153E, DOTC
Undersecretary Josefina T. Lichauco sent aletter to the bank controverting the said
assignment, clearly stating that orbital slot 153E can no longer be assigned toPASI. She
subsequently issued a Notice of Offer for several orbital slots including 153E in December
1997.PASI, claiming that the offer was without its knowledge and that it subsequently
came to learn that another companywhose identity had not been disclosed had submitted a
bid and won the award for orbital slot 153E, filed on January 23,1998 a complaint7before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City against Lichauco and the
"Unknown Awardee," for injunction to enjoin the award of orbital slot 153E, declare
its nullity, and for damages.PASI filed on February 23, 1998 a complaint before the Office of
the Ombudsman against Secretary Josefina TrinidadLichauco. In his affidavit-complaint, de
Guzman charged Lichauco with gross violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No.3019,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended, reading:(e)
Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private
party any unwarrantedbenefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
official, administrative or judicial functions throughmanifest partiality, evident bad faith
or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers andemployees of
officers or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or
otherconcessions.Because a prejudicial question was found by the Evaluation and
Preliminary Investigation Bureau (EPIB), the criminal suitwas dismissed and reconsideration
was denied by Order dated July 17, 1998. Hence, PASI is in petition for review oncertiorari,
arguing that the Ombudsman erred in dismissing the complaint.
ISSUE:
WON there exists a prejudicial question, and if in the affirmative, whether or not the
dismissal of the complainton that account is in order
R U L I N G :
Yes, there exists a prejudicial question because if the award to the undisclosed bidder of
the orbital lot 153Eis, in the civil case declared valid for being within Lichaucos scope
of authority to thus free her from liability for damages,there would be no prohibited act to
speak of nor would there be basis for undue injury claimed to have been suffered
bypetitioner.No, according to Yap v. Paras, Section 6, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court directs
that the proceedings may only besuspended, not dismissed, and that it may be made only
upon petition, and not at the instance of the judge alone or theinvestigating officer.
It would sanction the extiguishment of the criminal liability, if there be any, through
prescriptionunder Article 89 vis a vis Article 90 and 91 of the RPC.The Order dismissing OMB
Case No. 0-98-0416 dated July 17, 1998 against Lichauco was set aside. The Ombudsman
wasOrdered to reinstate the case for further proceedings.
R A T I O N A L E :
When a public officer acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, any injury caused by him is
his own personalliability and cannot be imputed to the State. (p.34, Political Law, Isagani
Cruz)