WON there exists a prejudicial question, and if in the affirmative, whether or not the dismissal of

o the award for orbital slot 153ºE,

 PASI also filed on February 23, 1998 a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman
entitled to th of the issues in the former would be determinati
considered Criminal Cases Nos. 200894 and 200895 as withdrawn.
o The Orders dated June 10, 1998 and July 21, 1998 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Makati (Branch 67) in making an initial payment of USD 3.5M to Aerospatiale.

When they requested the Land bank’s confirmation of its participation in a club loan, in
the amount of USD 11M for the government’s assignment to PASI of orbital slots 161ºE
and 153ºE, DOTC Undersecretary Josefina T. Lichauco sent a letter to the bank
controverting the said assignment, clearly stating that orbital slot 153°E can no longer be
assigned to PASI. She subsequently issued a Notice of Offer for several orbital slots
including 153ºE in December 1997.
 PASI filed a complaint before the RTC of Manadaluyong against Lichauca and the
Unknown Awardee for injunction to enjoin the award of orbital slot 153 E, declare its
nullity, and for damages
o claiming that the offer was without its knowledge and that it subsequently came to
learn that another company whose identity had not been disclosed had submitted a
bid and won the award for orbital slot 153ºE,
 PASI also filed on February 23, 1998 a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman
against Secretary Josefina Trinidad Lichauco.
de Guzman charged Lichauco with gross violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019,
otherwise known as the ISSUE: WON there exists a prejudicial question, and Criminal Cases Nos.
200894 and 200895 are likewise NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE for having been issued with grave abuse of
discretion. In lieu thereof, the said Metropolitan Trial Court is directed to SUSPEND the criminal
proceedings until after the final decision in Civil Case No. 95-1542 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati
City (Branch 137).
e OCP dismissed SMP’s criminal complaint for violation of PD No. 957 on the ground, among
others, that there existed a prejudicial question necessitating the suspension of the criminal
action until after the issue on the liability of the distressed e delivery of the 20 TCTs because
Atty. Orendain did not have the authority to represent BF Homes in the sale due to his
receivership having been terminated by the SEC, the basis for th6836
September 4, 2013

Doctrine of State Immunity:

o When a public officer, in this case the Ombdusman, acts without or in excess of
jurisdiction, any injury caused by him is his own personal, ownership, operation
and management of a Philippine satellite by a Filipino-owned or controlled
private consortium or corporation
 Pursuant to Article 4 of the MOU, the consortium of private telecommunications carriers
o increasing its capital, conducting negotiations with its business partners, and
 if in the affirmative, whether or not the dismissal of the complaint on that E and 153ºE to
PASI for its AGILA satellites.1

1
by a letter dated June 28, 1996
  When DOTC Sec confirmed the assignment of Phil. Orbital slots, PASI undertook
preparations for the launching, operation and management of its satellites by:
o obtaining loans, increasing its capital, conducting negotiations with its business
partners, and making an initial payment of USD 3.5M to Aerospatiale.
 When they requested the Land bank’s confirmation of its participation in a club loan, in
the amount of USD 11M for the government’s assignment to PASI of orbital slots 161ºE
and 153ºE, DOTC Undersecretary Josefina T. Lichauco sent a letter to the bank
controverting the said assignment, clearly stating that orbital slot 153°E can no longer be
assigned to PASI. She subsequently issued a Notice of Offer for several orbital slots
including 153ºE in December 1997.
 PASI filed a complaint before the RTC of Manadaluyong against Lichauca and the
o and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended
 Because a prejudicial question was found by the Evaluation and Preliminary
Investigation Bureau (EPIB), the criminal suit was dismissed and reconsideration was
denied by Order dated July 17, 1998. Hence, PASI is in petition for review on certiorari,
arguing that the Ombudsman erred in dismissing the complaint.

ISSUE: fvsdfgsdfgsdgsdgsdgsd
FACTS:gsdg