SECOND DIVISION
|
ADORACION G. ANGELES, Petitioner, - versus - HON. ANIANO
A. DESIERTO, as Ombudsman of the Philippines, ROLINE M. GINEZ-JABALDE, ANGEL
C. MAYORALGO, JR., ABELARDO L. MONTEMAYOR, ROBERT E. KALLOS and LEONARDO P.
TAMAYO, all of the Office of the Ombudsman, Secretary LINA B. LAIGO of the Department
of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), and Asst. Chief State Prosecutor
PASCUALITA DURAN-CERENO, Senior State Prosecutor HERNANI T. BARRIOS, State
Prosecutor RICHARD ANTHONY D. FADULLON and State Prosecutor ALFREDO P.
AGCAOILI, all of the Department of Justice, Manila, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 133077
Present: PUNO, J., Chairperson, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,* AZCUNA,
and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: September
8, 2006 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O
N
GARCIA, J.:
By
this special civil action for certiorari
and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, petitioner Adoracion G.
Angeles seeks the annulment and setting aside of the following issuances in
connection with OMB-0-97-0047, a proceeding instituted by the petitioner with
the Office of the Ombudsman against the respondents (DSWD) Secretary Lina B. Laigo; Assistant
Chief State Prosecutor Pascualita Duran-Cereno; Senior State Prosecutor (SSP) Hernani
T. Barrios; and State Prosecutors (SPs) Richard Anthony D. Fadullon and Alfredo
P. Agcaoili, for alleged violation of Article 171(5)[1]
of the Revised Penal Code, violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019,[2]
particularly Section 3(f)[3]
thereof, in relation to Article I, Section 3(b) (4)[4]
and Section 3 (c) (6)[5]
of R.A. No. 7610:[6]
1.) Resolution
dated September 18, 1997, issued by Graft Investigation Officer II Roline
M. Ginez-Jabalde of the Office of the Ombudsman, recommending the dismissal of
the charges filed by the petitioner against Secretary Lina B. Laigo of the DSWD;
Assistant Chief State Prosecutor
Pascualita Duran-Cereno; Senior State Prosecutor Hernani T. Barrios; and State
Prosecutors Richard Anthony D. Fadullon and Alfredo P. Agcaoili;
2.) Memorandum
dated November 20, 1997, issued by Special Prosecution Officer III Carlos
D. Montemayor of the Department of Justice (DOJ), recommending the approval of
the aforesaid September 18, 1997 Resolution; and
3.) Order
dated
The main case, OMB-0-97-0047, traces its roots from
a criminal complaint for physical abuse and maltreatment under R.A. No. 7610, filed
against the herein petitioner by her housemaids, Proclyn Pacay and Nancy Gaspar,
before the Department of Justice (DOJ).
The complaint, docketed as I.S.
No. 95-224, was initially assigned for investigation to SSP Hernani T. Barrios.
On
On
On
In the meantime, another criminal
complaint, also for violation of R.A. No. 7610, was filed against the
petitioner and her sister Oliva Angeles, by Rebecca Pacay, a former helper of
the petitioner. This other complaint was filed before the Quezon City
Prosecutor’s Office and thereat docketed as I.S. No. 96-258. On
Later, pursuant to a Memorandum dated
On
WHEREFORE and in view of the foregoing, it is
respectfully recommended that I.S. No. 96-097 filed by Rebecca Pacay against
respondent Judge Adoracion Angeles and Oliva Angeles be dismissed. Likewise, we recommend for approval the
filing of two (2) informations for violation of Section 10 (a) of Republic Act
No. 7610 against respondent Judge Adoracion Angeles relative to I.S. No.
95-224.
The aforementioned Joint Resolution
was approved by CSP Jovencito Zuño.
In time, the petitioner moved for a
partial reconsideration of the aforesaid joint resolution. With the inhibition of CSP Zuño, petitioner’s
motion for partial reconsideration was referred to the Acting CSP, Pascualita Duran-Cereno. In a resolution[8]
dated
Premises considered, the partial motion for
reconsideration is denied. Let the two
(2) informations for violations of Section 10 (a), RA 7610 be filed in the
Court of proper jurisdiction.
From the aforementioned denial resolution, the petitioner filed with the DOJ a
petition for review. Unfortunately for her, however, the petition was denied by DOJ Undersecretary Ricardo G.
Nepomuceno in the resolution dated
It was against the foregoing backdrop
of events that the petitioner, obviously displeased with what transpired, filed
with the Office of the Ombudsman an Affidavit-Complaint[9]
against the following: Secretary Lina B. Laigo of the DSWD; Assistant Chief
State Prosecutor Pascualita Duran-Cereno; SSP Hernani T. Barrios; and SPs
Richard Anthony D. Fadullon and Alfredo P. Agcaoili. The complaint was docketed
as OMB-0-97-0047.
We reproduce hereunder the
petitioner’s accusations against the impleaded respondents in OMB-0-97-0047, to
wit:
17.
That the
acts of all the respondents in unduly favoring the complainants in I.S. No.
95-224 and discriminating against me [petitioner] is likewise a wanton
violation of Sec. 3(f) of RA 3019;
18.
That the
malicious acts of herein respondents are also constitutive of child abuse as
defined by Section 3(b) (4) in relation to Section 3(c) (6) RA 7610 inasmuch as
the continued detention of the girls at the DSWD albeit against their free will
and their constant exposure to the trauma of a court litigation seriously
impair their normal development as members of society. Undoubtedly, the unfounded scandal
orchestrated by my detractors and maliciously supported by all the respondents
will leave an indelible stigma upon the girls; and
19.
That it
is evident that the case against me is rooted on vengeance with no other
intention than to harass and cast a stigma to my good name and the respondents
are all willing conspirators.
In the same
affidavit-complaint, the petitioner charged respondents SSP Barrios and SPs Fadullon
and Agcaoili of falsification under Article 171(5) of the Revised Penal Code.
In the herein first assailed Resolution[10]
dated
In the Memorandum dated
Finally, in the Order dated
Petitioner
is now before the Court via the
present recourse imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
Ombudsman and his investigating officers in dismissing OMB-0-97-0047. In the
same vein, the petitioner seeks to annul and set aside their above stated issuances
in said case. The mandamus aspect of the petition seeks to command the
respondent Ombudsman to file the information in court for violations of Article
171(5) of the Revised Penal Code and Section 3(e) and (f) of R.A. No. 3019, as
amended, against DSWD Secretary Lina B. Laigo, Assistant Chief State Prosecutor
Pascualita Duran-Cereno, SSP Hernani T. Barrios and SPs Richard Anthony D.
Fadullon and Alfredo P. Agcaoili.
The
petition is bereft of merit.
To the
petitioner, “the predisposition of the respondents
to indict (her) at all cost is very apparent and an undeniable badge of bad
faith on their part as it is clear that the findings (in the Joint Resolution)
are not the result of an honest and objective appraisal of the evidence but the
repulsive product of Barrios’ avenging nature which was supported and cooperated
with by his co-respondents,”[11]
in OMB-0-97-0047.
In support
of her conspiracy theory, the petitioner alleges that Secretary Lina B. Laigo of
the DSWD interfered with and manifested undue interest in the maltreatment case
by making repeated calls to the DOJ urging the immediate filing of criminal
information therefor against the petitioner.
As their
part in the perceived grand conspiracy, petitioner avers that respondents
Barrios, Fadullon and Agcaoili, whom she claims to have a close link with the DSWD Secretary, allegedly orchestrated her
indictment for maltreatment to protect the image of the DSWD which was
allegedly holding the complainants in
the maltreatment cases against their will.
Turning to
respondent Pascualita Duran-Cereno, this respondent, according to the
petitioner, conspired with the other respondents when “she maliciously affirmed in toto the obviously biased findings of her
co-respondents Barrios, Fadullon and Agcaoili.”[12]
With
respect to respondents Fadullon and Agcaoili, the petitioner alleged that the
two conspired with respondent Barrios in falsifying an unsigned Joint
Resolution[13] in
the maltreatment cases by ante-dating the same to show that it was ready for
release by
Time and again, the Court has ruled
that the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether a criminal
complaint should be dismissed or the necessary Information be filed in the
appropriate court. His determination and evaluation of the adequacy of evidence
in this regard are unfettered. His is an
exercise of powers based upon a constitutional mandate and the courts should
not interfere in such exercise.[15] So it is
that in Espinosa v. Office of the
Ombudsman,[16]
the Court states:
The prosecution of offenses committed by
public officers is vested in the Office of the Ombudsman. To insulate the Office from outside pressure
and improper influence, the Constitution as well as RA 6770 has endowed it with
a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory powers virtually free from
legislative, executive or judicial intervention. This Court consistently refrains from
interfering with the exercise of its powers, and respects the initiative and
independence inherent in the Ombudsman who, ‘beholden to no one, acts as the
champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of public service.
The
same ruling was reiterated in
On the issue of whether respondent Ombudsman committed
grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against respondents, let
it be stressed that the Ombudsman has discretion to determine whether a
criminal case, given its facts and circumstances, should be filed or not. It is basically his call. He may dismiss the complaint forthwith should
he find it to be insufficient in form or substance or he may proceed with the
investigation if, in his view, the complaint is in due and proper form and substance.
xxx xxx xxx
Indeed, we have consistently ruled that
unless there are good and compelling reasons, we cannot interfere in the
Ombudsman’s exercise of his investigating and prosecutory powers.
Without
good and compelling reasons to indicate otherwise, the Court cannot freely
interfere in the Ombudsman's exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory
powers. 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.[18]
However, while the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether or
not a criminal case should be filed, the Court is not precluded from reviewing his
action when there is an abuse of discretion, by way of Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court.[19]
The
Court sees no abuse, much less grave abuse of discretion, committed in this
case. 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.[20]
Such arbitrariness or despotism does not obtain here.
Without more, petitioner’s
bare allegation of intimacy
among the respondents in OMB-0-97-0047 does
not prove conspiracy inasmuch as conspiracy transcends companionship.[21] To establish conspiracy, evidence of actual
cooperation, rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is
required.[22]
As we see it, nothing on record even minutely suggests that the respondents
conspired to insure the indictment of the petitioner. As correctly pointed out
by the Ombudsman in the challenged Order dated
The coordination and monitoring on
the cases against the complainant Judge (petitioner) made by the respondent
Secretary should not be interpreted as pure interference on the job of the
state prosecutors. Enforcement of R.A.
7610 lies principally on the shoulders of the respondent Secretary being the
head of the agency called for this purpose.
The undue interest shown by the respondent Secretary should not be
viewed on the negative perspective but should be given a positive outlook. This is a clear signal that she is serious in
performing her job as protector of the rights of children against child abuse,
exploitation and discrimination.
xxx xxx xxx
The continued custody by the DSWD
over the children Proclyn Pacay and Nancy Gaspar works for their own advantage
and benefit contrary to the belief of the complainant Judge. Their constant exposure to the trauma of court
litigation are the necessary consequences of their decision to file a complaint
against Judge Adoracion G. Angeles but this is not tantamount to child abuse.
Neither
does the alleged similarity existing between the resolution prepared by
respondent Barrios and the Joint Resolution prepared by respondents Fadullon and
Agcaoili indicate conspiracy. The similarities could simply be attributed to
the fact that the two resolutions have been lifted from the same set of
records.
With
regard to the charge of falsification against respondents Barrios, Fadullon and
Agcaoili, again, we agree with the observations of Graft Investigation Officer II
Roline M. Ginez-Jabalde in his assailed Resolution dated
Respondent Barrios did not antedate his resolution
because on the same date
Complainant Judge’s assertion of ante-dating to conceal
connivance is entirely baseless because nobody could know at that time to whom
the case would be assigned in the event the inhibition and disqualification
will be granted.
xxx xxx xxx
A Sur-Rejoinder was filed by the complainant Judge where
she narrated some material facts which could enlighten the undersigned
investigator in the determination of probable cause.
Furthermore, the Joint Resolution was
not even signed by respondent Barrios, hence, it produces no legal effect and
is a mere scrap of paper. The fact that
it was introduced as evidence in the administrative complaint does not change
the status of the document.
The
allegation that respondent Pascualita Duran-Cereno allowed herself to be a part
of the conspiracy when she denied the petitioner’s partial motion for reconsideration
and affirmed the findings in the Joint Resolution of respondents Fadullon and
Agcaoili is utterly without basis. Petitioner who is herself a judge should
understand that respondent Pascualita Duran-Cereno merely performed her duties
as a reviewing officer. The alleged failure to consider the evidence
adduced by the petitioner should not be
a cause for an administrative case against said respondent because these
matters are best addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court during
the trial proper.
It
is likewise noteworthy that the petitioner had exhausted all remedies available
to her, which shows that the findings of the Prosecutors and the reviewing
officer are in accordance with law.
To
recapitulate, in the absence, as here, of a clear case of grave abuse of
discretion, the Court will not interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman,
who, depending on his finding and considered evaluation of the case, either
dismisses a complaint or proceeds with it.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
(NO PART)
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate
Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Second Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution,
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief
Justice
* No part.
[1] Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic
minister―The penalty of prision
mayor and a fine not to exceed P500 shall be imposed upon any public
officer, employee or notary who, taking advantage of his official position,
shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:
xxx xxx xxx
5. Altering true dates;
[2] Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Law as amended.
[3] Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers - In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxx xxx xxx
f) Neglecting or refusing, after
due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to act within a
reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining,
directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary
or material benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own
interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against any
other interested party.
[4] SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. –
xxx xxx xxx
(b) “Child abuse” refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child which includes any of the following:
xxx xxx xxx
(4) Failure to immediately give
medical treatment to an injured child resulting in serious impairment of his
growth and development or in his permanent incapacity or death.
[5] SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. –
xxx xxx xxx
(c) “Circumstances which gravely threaten or endanger the survival and normal development of children” include, but are not limited to, the following:
xxx xxx xxx
(6)
Circumstances analogous to those abovestated which endanger the life, safety or
normal development of children.
[6] Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.
[7] Rollo, pp. 185-216.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Affidavit Complaint,
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] Ocampo
IV v. The Ombudsman, et al.,G.R. Nos.
103446-67,
[16] G.R. No. 135775,
[17] G.R. No. 135249,
[18] Supra note 15.
[19] Director
Guillermo T. Domondon v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 129904,
[20] Cuison
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.128540,
[21] People v. Noel
Paguntalan, et al., G.R. No. 116272, March 27, 1995, 242 SCRA 753.
[22] Supra.