SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 129904. March 16, 2000]
DIRECTOR
GUILLERMO T. DOMONDON, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, Second
Division; HONORABLE ANIANO A. DESIERTO, in his official capacity as Ombudsman;
HONORABLE FRANCISCO A. VILLA, in his capacity as Overall Deputy Ombudsman; and
LEONARDO P. TAMAYO, in his official capacity as Deputy Special Prosecutor &
concurrent Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Special Prosecutor; respondents. francis
D E C I S I O N
BUENA, J.:
Before this Court is a petition for certiorari
and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction seeking to nullify and set aside the Order[1] of the Office of the Special Prosecutor/Ombudsman,
dated November 29, 1995, in Criminal Case No. 20574 (OMB-AFP-CRIM-93-0047), as
having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction.
The factual and procedural antecedents are
as follows:
On February and May 1994, four (4) separate
informations[2] were filed against petitioner and several others
before the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan, docketed as Crim. Case No.
20185 (OMB Case No. AFP-CRIM-93-0026), Crim. Case No. 20191 (OMB Case No.
AFP-CRIM-93-0049, OMB-4-93-1476), Crim. Case No. 20192 (OMB Case No. 93-0050,
OMB-4-93-1476) and Crim. Case No. 20576 (OMB-CRIM-AFP-93-0048).[3]
In May 1994, an additional information was
filed against petitioner and several others before the First Division of the
Sandiganbayan, docketed as Crim. Case No. 20574 (OMB-AFP-CRIM-93-0047).[4] The said case allegedly arose from a complaint filed
on May 11, 1993 against certain officials of the Philippine National Police
(PNP), including petitioner, "…due to the discovery of a chain of
irregularities within the PNP Commands in CY 1992, ranging from the irregular
issuance of Advices of Sub-Allotments, ghost purchases/deliveries, forged
payrolls up to false issuances of the combat, clothing and individual equipment
(CCIE) to the uniformed personnel of the PNP valued at P83,600,000.00 …."[5] Petitioner was included as an accused in Crim. Case
No. 20574 on account of his approval for the Chief, PNP, as then Director of
the Office of the Directorate for Comptrollership (ODC), of the release of
Advice of Allotment (ASAs) Nos. 4363 and 4400 in the amount of P5 million and
P15 million, respectively. The said ASAs were actually signed by his co-accused
Superintendent Van Luspo, with authority from petitioner.[6]
On May 12, 1994, petitioner filed a motion
for consolidation before the First Division of the Sandiganbayan seeking the
consolidation of Crim. Case No. 20574 (OMB-AFP-CRIM-93-0047) with Crim. Case
Nos. 20185, 20191, 20192 and 20576, all pending before the Third Division of
the Sandiganbayan.[7]marie
On May 17, 1994, the First Division of the
Sandiganbayan issued two (2) Orders, the first, ordering the prosecution,
through prosecutor Erdulfo Q. Querubin, "…to demonstrate the probable
complicity of the three (3) accused herein [referring to General Cesar
Nazareno, General Joven Domondon and Senior Superintendent Van Luspo] in the
transaction described in the Information resulting in a violation of [the]
Anti-graft Law under Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. 3019;"[8] considering its uncertainty as to the probable cause
against the aforementioned accused,[9] and the second Order, deferring action on the motion
for consolidation "[c]onsidering the uncertainty of this Court to even
proceeding (sic) with this case at this time and considering further that the
motion for consolidation is (sic) filed by only one of the fifteen (15)
accused, and considering finally the statement of Prosecutor Erdulfo Q.
Querubin that this case can stand independently of the proceeding in the other
cases…until at least two (2) of the observations of this Court above on this
matter shall have been responded to."[10]
On June 8, 1994, the First Division of the
Sandiganbayan cancelled the scheduled arraignment in Crim. Case No. 20574 until
further advice from the prosecution.[11]
On November 8, 1994, Erdulfo Q. Querubin,
Special Prosecution Officer III of the Office of the Special
Prosecutor/Ombudsman, issued an Order, approved by [then] Ombudsman Conrado M.
Vasquez,[12] recommending that the information in Crim. Case No.
20574 be amended to exclude six (6) accused (not including the petitioner), and
that the prosecution against the other remaining accused (including the
petitioner) be continued.[13]
On May 17, 1995, petitioner filed a motion
for reconsideration of the foregoing Order with prayer for the consolidation of
Crim. Case No. 20574 with Crim. Case Nos. 20185, 20191, 20192, 20576 and 22098,[14] which are allegedly pending reinvestigation by the
Office of the Ombudsman.[15]
On November 29, 1995, Joselito R. Ferrer,
Special Prosecutor I of the Office of the Special Prosecutor / Ombudsman,
issued an Order recommending that the Order of Special Prosecution Officer
Erdulfo Q. Querubin, dated November 8, 1994, be modified to exclude petitioner
from the information in Crim. Case No. 20574; and denying the prayer for
consolidation.[16] However, the foregoing Order was disapproved by
Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto on February 19, 1997, on the basis of the
recommendation of Overall Deputy Ombudsman Francisco A. Villa.[17] In his memorandum dated September 2, 1996 and
addressed to the Ombudsman, Overall Deputy Ombudsman Francisco A. Villa
proposed the setting of the arraignment and pre-trial conference in Crim. Case
No. 20574.[18] Accordingly, a Motion to Admit Amended Information
was filed with the Sandiganbayan on August 26, 1997.[19] The amended information excluded some of the accused
but included petitioner among others as they were recommended for further
prosecution by the Ombudsman.[20]
Hence, this petition. The following issues
are raised:
novero
A. WHETHER THERE
WAS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN
THE RESPONDENTS VILLA AND DESIERTO DENIED THE PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION;
B. WHETHER THERE
WAS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN
THE RESPONDENTS VILLA, DESIERTO, AND TAMAYO DENIED THE PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
CONSOLIDATION;
C. WHETHER THE
RESPONDENT FIRST DIVISION, SANDIGANBAYAN SHOULD BE ENJOINED FROM PROCEEDING
WITH THE HEARING AND OTHER INCIDENTS OF CRIMINAL CASE NO. 20574 AGAINST THE
PETITIONER DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE PETITION.
Petitioner contends that respondents Villa
and Desierto acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying his motion for
reconsideration, arguing that there is no probable cause against him and that
the said respondents disregarded the evidence he adduced.
Petitioner also alleges that respondents
Desierto, Villa and Tamayo acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying his
motion for consolidation, claiming that since all of the pertinent cases have
been remanded by the Sandiganbayan to the Office of the Special Prosecutor
under the Office of the Ombudsman for reinvestigation, "jurisdiction has
revested" in the latter and "…it is grave abuse of discretion to
refuse to perform the duty of consolidating these cases."[21]
The contentions are untenable.
As this Court stated in Ocampo, IV vs.
Ombudsman:[22]
"Well settled
is the rule that criminal prosecutions may not be restrained, either through a
preliminary or final injunction or a writ of prohibition, except in the
following instances:
(1) To afford
adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
(2) When necessary
for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or
multiplicity of actions;
(3) When there is
a prejudicial question which is sub-judice;
(4) When the acts
of the officer are without or in excess of authority;
(5) Where the
prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation;
(6) When double
jeopardy is clearly apparent;
(7) Where the
Court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
(8) Where it is a
case of persecution rather than prosecution;
(9) Where the
charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for vengeance;
(10) When there is
clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that
ground has been denied; ella
(11) Preliminary
injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to prevent the threatened
unlawful arrest of petitioners."
Corollary to the foregoing rule, the courts
cannot interfere with the discretion of the fiscal or Ombudsman to determine
the specificity and adequacy of the averments of the offense charged. He may
dismiss the complaint forthwith if he finds it to be insufficient in form or
substance or if he otherwise finds no ground to continue with the inquiry; or
he may proceed with the investigation if the complaint is, in his view, in due
and proper form.[23] However, while the Ombudsman has the full discretion
to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed, this Court is not
precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman’s action when there is an abuse of
discretion, by way of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[24]
Thus, we proceed to determine whether the
respondents Ombudsman Desierto and Overall Deputy Ombudsman Villa acted with
grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious
and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction,
or, in other words where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic
manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and
gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to
perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[25] Such arbitrariness or despotism does not obtain
here. Petitioner has not shown that respondents Desierto and Villa committed
grave abuse of discretion in their determination to proceed with petitioner’s
prosecution in Crim. Case No. 20574. On the basis of their reinvestigation,
respondents found sufficient probable cause to include petitioner in the
indictment. As thoroughly discussed by respondents in the Comment and Rejoinder
filed before this Court, petitioner’s "complicity in the commission of the
crime is clearly revealed by the facts and circumstances surrounding the
case."[26] At this point we reiterate that "xxx [t]his is
an exercise of the Ombudsman’s powers based upon constitutional mandate and the
courts should not interfere in such exercise. The rule is based not only upon
respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the
Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well.
Otherwise, the functions of the courts will be grievously hampered by
innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings
conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before
it, in much the same way that the courts will be extremely swamped if they
could be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the
fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information
in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant."[27]
With regard to respondents’ denial of
petitioner’s motion for consolidation of Crim. Case No. 20574 with Crim. Case
Nos. 20185, 20191, 20192, 20576 and 22098, we find the same to be well-founded.
While the Ombudsman has full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal
case should be filed in the Sandiganbayan, once the case has been filed with
said court, it is the Sandiganbayan, and no longer the Ombudsman, which has
full control of the case so much so that the informations may not be dismissed,
or in the instant case, may not be consolidated with other pending cases,
without the approval of the said court.[28]nigel
Incidentally, petitioner filed a
Manifestation[29] dated June 30, 1999 before this Court, stating that
on June 11, 1999, the Office of the Ombudsman issued an Order[30] excluding petitioner from the information in Crim.
Case No. 20185. In the said Manifestation, petitioner claims that "…the
subject of the above-entitled petition includes Criminal Case No. 20185 as well
as Criminal Cases Nos. 20574, 20191, 20192, 20576 and 22098."[31] Petitioner further claims that "…a perusal of
the records of Criminal Cases Nos. 20574, 20191, 20192, 20576 and 22098 would
show that the alleged complicity and participation of the petitioner is (sic)
the same as in Criminal Case No. 20185; and concludes that "…with respect
to petitioner, Criminal Cases Nos. 20574, 20191, 20192, 20576 and 22098 should
be treated in the same manner as Criminal Case No. 20185."[32]
The exclusion of petitioner from the
information as one of the accused in Crim. Case No. 20185 would not affect the
outcome of this petition for the reason that we cannot, at this time, determine
with certainty whether indeed the alleged complicity and participation of
petitioner in Crim. Case No. 20185 are the same as in Crim. Case Nos. 20574,
20191, 20192, 20576 and 22098. Contrary to the assertion of petitioner, this
petition concerns only Crim. Case No. 20574 insofar as it involves the
propriety of the Ombudsman’s action in proceeding with the said case. And as we
have stated at the outset, this Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman’s
exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers in the absence of grave
abuse of discretion on his part. Criminal Case Nos. 20185, 20191, 20192, 20576
and 22098 have come to the attention of this Court merely because petitioner
has sought a review of the Ombudsman’s denial of his motion for consolidation.
If indeed the said cases have "common factual antecedents" and petitioner’s
"complicity and participation" in all of these cases are the same to
warrant his exclusion from the other pertinent cases, petitioner’s recourse is
with the Sandiganbayan where the said cases are already pending.
In view of the foregoing, we do not find it
necessary to address the other matters originally raised by petitioner in a
motion[33] dated January 6, 2000, in which he informed this
Court that the Fifth Division of the Sandiganbayan has issued an Order dated
November 25, 1999, setting the arraignment of petitioner in Criminal Case No.
20191.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby
DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza,
Quisumbing, and De Leon, Jr.,
JJ., concur. brando
[1] Rollo, pp. 21-26.
[2] Criminal Case Nos. 20191, 20192 and 20576 were for violation of section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," as amended.
[3] Rollo, pp. 32-49.
[4] Ibid. at pp. 50-53.
[5] Ibid. at pp. 104-105.
[6] Ibid. at p. 105.
[7] Ibid. at pp. 58-60.
[8] Ibid. at p. 61.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid. at p. 62.
[11] Ibid. at p. 64.
[12] The said Order was approved by Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez on April 27, 1995 and received by petitioner on May 12, 1995.
[13] Rollo, pp. 66-73.
[14] The Court notes that petitioner has added Crim. Case No. 22098 to the four (4) original cases pending before the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan.
[15] Rollo, pp. 74-83.
[16] Ibid. at pp. 21-26.
[17] Ibid. at pp. 26-31.
[18] Ibid. at p. 27.
[19] Ibid. at p. 108.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid. at pp. 16-17.
[22] 225 SCRA 725, 729 (1993).
[23] Ocampo, IV. vs. Ombudsman, 225 SCRA 725, 729-730 (1993).
[24] Garcia-Rueda vs. Pascasio, 278 SCRA 769, 776 (1997).
[25] Cuison vs. Court of Appeals, 289 SCRA 159, 171 (1998).
[26] Rollo, p. 110.
[27] Ocampo, IV. vs. Ombudsman, 225 SCRA 725, 730 (1993).
[28] Ocampo, IV. vs. Ombudsman, 225 SCRA 725, 730 (1993).
[29] Rollo, pp. 195-196.
[30] Ibid. at pp. 198-200.
[31] Ibid. at p. 195.
[32] Ibid. at p. 196.
[33] Ibid. at pp. 216-219.