THIRD
DIVISION
|
JOSE M. GALARIO,
Petitioner, - versus
- OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN ( Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 166797 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO,
and NACHURA,* JJ. Promulgated: |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D
E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before Us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997
Revised Rules of Court seeking the nullification of the (1) Resolution[1] of
the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao (OMB-Mindanao) dated 26 November 2004
finding probable cause to indict Jose M. Galario, Jr. (petitioner) for
violation of Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act); and (2) Order[2] of
the same Office dated
This case originated from an
affidavit-complaint filed by Ruth P. Piano (private respondent) against
petitioner resulting in the institution of administrative and criminal
investigations by the OMB-Mindanao, docketed as OMB-M-A-04-128-G and
OMB-M-C-04-0282-G, respectively.
The following facts are undisputed:
Petitioner was elected on his first
term as City Mayor of Valencia City, Bukidnon, during the May 2001 local
elections. Upon assumption of office, petitioner effected a reorganization and
personnel audit of the local bureaucracy. He then issued two memoranda, both
with subject heading “TRANSFER OF ASSIGNMENT” and dated
Effective
upon receipt, you are relieved from your present position as the City Budget
Officer and to perform functions as the City Liaison Officer to do the
following task[s] to wit:
1. To coordinate with the City Mayor and Department of Budget and Management and with other Agencies/Functionaries for the facilitation and immediate release of our Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) and other financial assistance for the different City projects.
2. To undergo and submit a study on How to Improve the City’s Economic Enterprise/Revenue for the welfare of our people.
3. To submit, keep the Local Chief Executive abreast of every transaction[s] relative hereto.
4. To turn-over all the documents & properties of the City Budget Office to Mr. Bartolome C. Barte as Budget Officer in an Acting capacity.[3]
Thus, petitioner created the position
of City Liaison Officer to which he “transferred” private respondent with the
task of studying and recommending how to improve the economic enterprises and
the local revenue collection efforts of the city.
The second memorandum was of the same
tenor as the first and was a substantial restoration thereof.
Private respondent opposed the two memoranda and filed a
complaint for Constructive Dismissal, Reinstatement to Former Position and Payment
of Representation and Travel Allowance (RATA) with the Civil Service
Commission–Regional Office X (CSC-Regional Office). The CSC-Regional Office agreed with private
respondent and by virtue of an Order dated
WHEREFORE, premises considered, instant appeal is hereby granted. Accordingly, Mayor Galario is ordered to reinstate Ms. Piano to her previous position as City Budget Officer and to cause the payment of her RATA from the time she was deprived of it until her reinstatement. x x x.[4]
Petitioner then filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the foregoing Order which was denied by the CSC-Regional
Office in another Order dated
WHEREFORE,
the appeal of Valencia City Mayor Jose M. Galario, Jr. is hereby DISMISSED.
Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. X Orders dated
Private respondent subsequently moved
for the execution of CSC Resolution No. 030544 dated
Even
before the CSC could act on private respondent’s motion for execution,
petitioner issued Memorandum Order No. 07-55 dated
In Memorandum Order No. 07-65 dated
Meanwhile, petitioner formally asked
the opinion of the CSC-Regional Office on whether or not he could legally
prohibit private respondent from signing documents relating to the financial
transactions of the city. In a letter dated
Thereafter, private respondent filed
with the CSC a second Motion for Execution of its Resolution No. 030096 dated
The CSC, in Resolution No. 04-1003
dated
WHEREFORE, the Commission hereby directs Mayor Jose M. Galario, Jr. to allow Piano to perform all the duties relevant to the position of City Budget Officer and to allow her to hold office at the City Budget Office. Failure of Mayor Galario, Jr. to comply with the same would compel the Commission to cite him in contempt and file the appropriate charges with the Office of the Ombudsman.
The Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. X is directed to monitor the strict implementation and enforcement of this Resolution and to submit a report to the Commission within ten (10) days from receipt.[11]
Still not satisfied with the latest
Resolution of the CSC and petitioner’s purported non-compliance with the CSC Order
to reinstate her as City Budget Officer, private respondent went before the
OMB-Mindanao to charge petitioner administratively (OMB-M-A-04-128-G) and
criminally (OMB-M-C-04-282-G) based on the following allegations:
Oppression, grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to
the best interests of the government service, and violation of anti-graft and
corrupt practices acts, causing undue injury to [herein private respondent],
and refusing to act upon lawful order of the Civil Service Commission, to fully
implement the Resolution of the Civil Service Commission, and violation of
ethical standards required of government officials and employees, under RA6713.
After a preliminary investigation and
the submission of petitioner’s counter-affidavits and other evidence, the
OMB-Mindanao issued a Resolution dated
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Office finds probable cause to indict [herein petitioner] CITY MAYOR JOSE M. GALARIO, JR., GUILTY of violation of Section 3(f) of R.A. 3019, as amended.
Accordingly,
let the corresponding information be filed in the Sandiganbayan.[12]
Petitioner thereafter filed a Motion
for Reconsideration praying for the setting aside of the aforestated
OMB-Mindanao Resolution dated
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
The
Resolution dated
Here now comes petitioner before this
Court via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the revised
Rules of Court, raising the following arguments:
I.
THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO COMMITTED GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT
RESOLVED THAT PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS TO HOLD PETITIONER LIABLE FOR VIOLATION OF
SECTION 3(F) OF R.A. 3019, WHEN IN TRUTH AND IN FACT, THE ELEMENTS OF THE
SUBJECT CRIME DO NOT EXIST IN THIS CASE AND THAT THERE IS NO FACTUAL BASIS TO
PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE ELEMENT OF “FAVORING HIS OWN INTEREST OR GRANTING
UNDUE ADVANTAGE IN FAVOR OF ANOTHER PARTY”.
II.
THAT THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR MINDANAO COMMITTED
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT
INSISTED THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO HEED THE CSC REINSTATEMENT ORDER OF 17 MARCH
2004[13]
WHEN IN TRUTH AND IN FACT, THERE IS BOTH A LEGAL AND A PHYSICAL
IMPOSSIBILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE SAME
CONSIDERING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS ALREADY REINSTATED TO HER POSITION AS
EARLY AS 25 JULY 2003.
III. THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND FAILED TO ACCORD DUE PROCESS TO PETITIONER WHEN IT SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND HEREIN PETITIONER LIABLE UNDER SECTION 3(F) OF R.A. 3019 WHEN THERE IS NO FACTUAL ALLEGATION OF ANY OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE SAID OFFENSE IN THE COMPLAINT OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, PETITIONER WAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO AND REFUTE SUCH CHARGE CONSIDERING THAT ONLY FACTS RELATING TO SECTION 3(E) WERE RAISED IN THE COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT.
As petitioner empathically stated in
this Petition for Certiorari:
[P]etitioner comes to the
succor of the Honorable Supreme Court in order to restrain the respondents from
prosecuting the case against petitioner before the Sandiganbayan and find that
the Ombudsman acted without or in excess of its authority amounting to grave
abuse of discretion when it ordered the filing of informations [sic]
against petitioner for violation of R.A. 3019, despite the palpable absence of
probable cause.[14]
Petitioner
posits that the OMB-Mindanao committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction when it found probable cause for the filing of
an information against him for the violation of Section 3(f) of Republic Act
No. 3019[15] since
an important element of the offense was not established, particularly, that he
was “favoring his own interest or granting undue advantage in favor of another
party.”
Petitioner further alleges that he was deprived of due process
because he was not given the opportunity to respond to and refute the charge
against him considering that the offense referred to in the affidavit-complaint
was for violation of Section 3(e),[16]
and not Section 3(f), of Republic Act No. 3019.
Moreover, petitioner further
claims that while private respondent accused him of refusing to act within
reasonable time on the Resolutions of the CSC directing private respondent’s “full
reinstatement” as City Budget Officer, proof to support the allegation remains
wanting. Petitioner reiterates that there was reinstatement of private
respondent as early as
On
the other hand, the OMB-Mindanao, as represented by the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), asserts that the allegations in the complaint-affidavit filed
with the OMB-Mindanao make a case for violation of Section 3(f) of Republic Act
No. 3019. In its Comment, the OSG
reasoned:
[W]hile it is true that private respondent’s
complaint-affidavit does not contain any specific allegation to the effect that
petitioner refused to implement CSC Resolution No. 030096 dated
The OSG argues that
private respondent’s complaint-affidavit narrates the acts of the petitioner of
removing private respondent from her position as City Budget Officer in order
to have total control of the City’s finances. Moreover, it maintains that the
complaint-affidavit clearly alleged that petitioner banned private respondent
from signing any document involving the City’s financial transactions to give
undue advantage to Mr. Bartolome Barte who was thereafter authorized by
petitioner to perform said tasks.
The OSG states that the allegations
in the complaint-affidavit and the evidence on record, including petitioner’s
neglect or refusal to fully implement the CSC’s order to reinstate private
respondent as City Budget Officer, were unjustified and such refusal qualifies
as corrupt practice under Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 3019. The complaint-affidavit filed by
private-respondent reveals that petitioner’s refusal to heed the CSC’s order of
reinstatement was clearly intended to discriminate against private respondent
based on petitioner’s subsequent acts including, but not limited to, the
following:
Petitioner’s offer
to private respondent to retire from the service with payment of all her
retirement benefits knowing fully well that private respondent was not yet
available for retirement.
Petitioner’s act of
declaring the position of City Budget Officer vacant after receiving CSC’s
Resolution No. 040552 dated
The
OSG also avers that the petitioner’s purported reinstatement of the private
respondent, but still barring her from signing the financial documents of the
city without valid reasons, showed a sinister motive on the part of petitioner.
The OSG called attention to the fact that private respondent was even ordered
by the petitioner to transfer to an office without any support staff, table,
secretary, and office facilities. Finally, the OSG contends that the transfer
by petitioner of private respondent from City Budget Officer to City Liaison
Officer, a non-existent position, was equal to constructive dismissal.
The
threshold issue involved, therefore, in the present petition is whether or not
the OMB-Mindanao acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in issuing (1) its Resolution dated 26 November 2004
finding probable cause against petitioner for violation of Section 3(f) of Republic
Act No. 3019; and (2) an Order dated 7 January 2005 denying petitioner’s Motion
for Reconsideration of its earlier
Resolution.
In
the determination of probable cause conducted by the investigating authority, a
task which falls herein on the OMB-Mindanao since the criminal complaint was
filed against a public official in relation to the performance of his official
duties,[18]
probable cause does not require certainty of guilt for a crime. It is
sufficient that based on the preliminary investigation conducted, it is believed
that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. It has
been clearly explained in several decisions by this Court, as in Raro v. Sandiganbayan,[19] that:
Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.
Probable cause is a reasonable ground for presuming that a matter is or may be well-founded on such state of facts in the prosecutor’s mind as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe – or entertain an honest or strong suspicion – that it is so. x x x.[20]
In the instant petition, we do not
perceive any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the OMB-Mindanao when it
issued its Resolution dated
Firstly, a
finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more
likely than not a crime has been committed and there is enough reason to
believe that it was committed by the accused. It need not be based on clear and
convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing absolute
certainty of guilt. A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect
to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.
The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. x x x. Probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. (Italics supplied.)[21]
Secondly, the allegations and evidence
presented by petitioner failed to prove that the OMB-Mindanao acted in such a
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment in determining the existence of
probable cause against him. As defined
by this Court –
By grave abuse of discretion is meant capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be grave abuse of discretion as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[22]
The
OMB-Mindanao based the finding of probable cause on the various affidavits and
memoranda and other evidence submitted to it by the parties during preliminary
investigation. Petitioner and private
respondent were both accorded the opportunity to present their sides and refute
each other’s contentions. It bears to
emphasize that the Resolution[23]
dated
Memorandum dated
Memorandum dated
Complaint for
Constructive Dismissal, Reinstatement to Former Position and Payment of
Representation and Travel Allowance
Petitioner’s
Counter-Affidavit
Private
Respondent’s Affidavit-Complaint
Petitioner’s
Answer to the Affidavit-Complaint
Private Respondent’s Reply
That the
OMB-Mindanao looked into the aforementioned documents submitted by BOTH parties
before issuing its assailed Resolution strongly negates against any averments
that it issued the same capriciously, whimsically, arbitrarily or in a despotic
manner.
And thirdly, a finding of probable cause is a
finding of fact which is generally not reviewable by this Court. Only where
there is a clear case of grave abuse of this discretion will this Court
interfere in the Ombudsman's findings of probable cause. As a general rule, the
Court does not interfere with the Ombudsman's determination of the existence or
absence of probable cause.
As the Court is
not a trier of facts, it reposes immense respect to the factual determination
and appreciation made by the Ombudsman. x x x.[24]
Absent any grave abuse of discretion tainting it, the courts will not interfere with the Ombudsman’s supervision and control over the preliminary investigation conducted by him. x x x.
x x x. It is beyond the ambit of this Court to review the exercise of discretion of the Ombudsman in prosecuting or dismissing a complaint filed before it.[25]
It is not sound practice to depart
from the policy of non-interference in the Ombudsman's exercise of discretion to
determine whether or not to file information against an accused. As cited in a
long line of cases, this Court has pronounced that it cannot pass upon the
sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence to determine the existence of probable
cause. 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. If
it were otherwise, this Court will be clogged with an innumerable list of cases
assailing investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman
with regard to complaints filed before it, to determine if there is probable
cause.
[T]he Court does not interfere with the Ombudsman’s discretion in the finding of probable cause resulting in its investigations. The Ombudsman’s findings are essentially factual in nature, and the Supreme Court is NOT a trier of facts.[26]
Unless it is shown that the
questioned acts were done in a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
evidencing a clear case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, this Court will not interfere in the findings of
probable cause determined by the Ombudsman. The exercise of the Ombudsman of
its constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutory powers shall, as a
general rule, be left alone by this Court.
Now we move to the legal issue raised
by petitioner as to whether he may be charged with violation of Section 3(f) of
Republic Act No. 3019 when he was charged in the affidavit-complaint for
another offense, Section 3(e) of the same Act.
Petitioner contends that the OMB-Mindanao had no basis whatsoever when it ruled that the herein petitioner may be held liable under Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 3019 when he refused to reinstate private respondent to favor his own interest or to give undue advantage in favor of Bartolome Barte. Petitioner alleges that the OMB-Mindanao arrived at such a sweeping conclusion when not even the private respondent had made the said allegations in her affidavit-complaint or any pleading. Petitioner argues that “absent such allegations in the affidavit-complaint, there is simply no basis for the public respondent to declare that the herein petitioner may be held liable for violation of Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 3019, as these allegations are essential to have a finding of probable cause of violation of Section 3(f).”[27]
Pertinent provisions of Republic Act
No. 3019, namely, Sections 3(e) and 3(f), are reproduced below:
SEC.
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:
x
x x x
(e)
Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private
party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply
to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with
the grant of licences or permits or other concessions.
(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 purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against any other interested party. (Italics ours.)
Private
respondent’s affidavit-complaint alleged the violation by petitioner of Section
3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, but the Ombudsman, after preliminary
investigation, ordered the filing of an information against petitioner for
violation of Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 3019 instead.
This Court spelled out in Sistoza
v. Desierto[28] the
following elements of the offense falling under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No.
3019:
(a) The accused is a public officer or a private person charged in conspiracy with the former;
(b) The public officer commits the prohibited acts during the performance of his or her official duties or in relation to his or her public functions;
(c) That he or she causes undue injury to any party, whether the government or a private party;
(d) Such undue injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; and
(e) That the public officer has acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable neglect. Evidently, mere bad faith or partiality and negligence per se are not enough for one to be held liable under the law since the act of bad faith or partiality must in the first place be evident or manifest, respectively, while the negligent deed should both be gross and inexcusable. It is further required that any or all of these modalities ought to result in undue injury to a specified party.
The OMB-Mindanao determined the absence of one element,
thus, barring it from indicting petitioner for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic
Act No. 3019. In its Resolution dated
The complainant alleged that her
representation and transportation allowance (RATA) was cut-off effective 01
August 2001, in favor of Bartolome C. Barte, acting as Officer-in-Charge and
functioning as Budget Officer. However,
the explanation of the respondent that complainant had been receiving the benefits
corresponding to her position per Memorandum Order No. 0755 dated
As a result, one of the elements constituting the offense under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, that the public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, is missing. Accordingly, proof of the extent or quantum of damage is not essential, it being sufficient that the injury suffered or benefit received can be perceived to be substantial enough and not merely negligible. It is recognized that there was no proof of damage caused to the complainant since in fact she is now receiving her RATA.[29]
Notably, private respondent and
petitioner agree that petitioner was already receiving her RATA as private
respondent did not controvert the fact of payment of her RATA.
While the OMB-Mindanao did not find
probable cause to indict petitioner for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act
No. 3019, it did find that there was probable cause to file an information
against petitioner for violation of Section 3(f) of the same statute.
A violation
of Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 3019 is committed when the following
elements[30] exist:
a) The offender is a public officer;
b)
The said officer has neglected or has refused to act without sufficient
justification after due demand or request has been made on him;
c) Reasonable time has elapsed from such demand or request without the
public officer having acted on the matter pending before him; and
d) Such failure to so act is "for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage in favor of an interested party, or discriminating against another.
The OMB-Mindanao, in its Resolution
dated
The real issue before us is one in which [herein private respondent] accuses [herein petitioner] Mayor Galario, Jr. of refusing to act within a reasonable time on the Order/Resolution of the Civil Service Commission directing the latter to fully reinstate the former to her position as Budget Officer.
Records
would show that on 7 January 2002, the Civil Service Commission [Regional
Office] issued an order directing [petitioner] to reinstate [private
respondent] Piano to her previous position as Budget Officer and to cause the
payment of her RATA. The Motion for
Reconsideration filed by respondent Mayor was denied by the CSC, Region X,
Cagayan de Oro City, on
Despite
the Resolution of the Civil Service Commission, [petitioner] did not implement
the same. Dilly-dallying its implementation, [petitioner] filed a Motion for
Reconsideration questioning CSC Resolution No. 030096 dated
Consequently,
the Civil Service Commission, on
While
[petitioner] reinstated [private respondent] as City Budget Officer on
Consequently,
[private respondent] filed a Motion to Implement CSC Resolution No. 030096
dated
x x x x
Accordingly,
it is apparent that CSC Resolution No. 040552, dated
By
the foregoing acts, it is apparent that [petitioner’s] Manifestation of
Compliance with the Order/Resolution of the Civil Service Commission is
tantamount to non-compliance.
Accordingly, [petitioner]
may be held liable under Section (f), R.A. 3019, by x x x refusing, after due demand or request,
without sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable time on
reinstating herein [private respondent] as Budget Officer, for the purpose of
favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor of Bartolome
Barte.
Wherefore, premises considered, this Office finds probable cause to indict [petitioner] guilty of violation of Section 3(f) of R.A. 3019, as amended.[31]
There is no reason for us to disturb
the findings of the OMB-Mindanao as aforequoted. We reiterate that this Court has adopted a
policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations, and
leaves to the investigating prosecutor (the Ombudsman, in this case) sufficient
latitude of discretion, not only in determining what will constitute sufficient
evidence that will establish "probable cause" for the filing of
information against a supposed offender, but as well as the proper offense to
be charged against said offender depending again on the evidence submitted by
the parties during the preliminary investigation.
Squarely in point is Avila v. Sandiganbayan and Ombudsman which
stated thus:
We
find no merit in petitioner's contention that he was deprived of due process
because the accusation in the information was for violation of Section 3(e), R.
A. 3019, but the crime charged in the letter complaint subject of the
preliminary investigation was for direct assault.
In Enrile vs. Salazar, we ruled that there is "nothing inherently irregular or contrary to law in filing against a respondent an indictment for an offense different from what was charged in the initiatory complaint, if warranted by the evidence developed during the preliminary investigation."[32]
However,
this power of the Ombudsman to determine probable cause and thus charge the
proper information is subject to the requirements of due process, as embodied
in the Constitution.
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, in which case Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may
exceptionally be invoked pursuant to Section I, Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution.[33]
Finally, it
bears emphasizing once again the extent of the powers of the Ombudsman in the
fulfillment of its constitutional mandate as protector of the people. Article
XI, Section 13 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, enumerates the
powers, functions, and duties of the Office of the Ombudsman, among which is
to:
(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.
The Ombudsman Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6770) likewise provides:
Sec 15. Powers, Functions and
Duties. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions
and duties:
(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government, the investigation of such cases. (Emphases supplied.)
It is clear from the foregoing
constitutional and statutory provisions that the Ombudsman is given a plenary
and unqualified authority with respect to its investigatory and prosecutory[34]
power, subject only to the constitutional limitations, and its coverage
cannot be limited to the allegations in any complaint-affidavit that may have
been filed against a public officer. In
fact, the Ombudsman may investigate and prosecute on its own, without need for
a complaint-affidavit, for as long as the case falls within its
jurisdiction. Hence, regardless of the
allegations and accusations against the public officer in the
affidavit-complaint, it still rests upon the Ombudsman to determine the proper
crime or offense which can be charged against the public officer depending on
the findings of the Ombudsman in the preliminary investigation.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The
Resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao dated 26 November 2004 in
OMB-M-C-04-0282-G finding probable cause against petitioner Jose M. Galario,
Jr. for violation of Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 3019 and the Order of the
same Office dated 7 January 2005 denying petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration are hereby AFFIRMED. Let the appropriate information be filed
against the petitioner before the Sandiganbayan. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate
Justice |
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
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.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
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’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* No part.
[1] Rollo, pp. 39-48.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] The Motion for Reconsideration filed by
petitioner with the CSC was supported by a Manifesto
of Support for his decision in transferring private respondent to another
position, signed by some
211 alleged employees of the City Government of Valencia; as well as several affidavits signed by people who
had negative experiences with private respondent as Budget Officer.
[6] Rollo, p.
118.
[7] This includes the payment of the RATA of private
respondent. The parties agree that the RATA due
private respondent has been given.
[8] Rollo, p.
128.
[9] Petitioner filed an administrative case
against private respondent with the Ombudsman under
Case No. OMB-M-A-03-12-C for Dishonesty, Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the
Best Interest of the Service, and
Violation of Section 4 (C) of R.A. 6713; and a criminal case under Case No. 9098-98
(OMB-MIN-98-0104). The two cases were based on allegations that private respondent was found to
have falsified her income tax return for 1996 to include a dead daughter as one of her qualified
dependents to avail herself of exemptions under the law. Both were dismissed.
[10]
[11] Rollo, p. 144.
[12]
[13] The issues
enumerated are as stated in petitioner’s Petition for Certiorari.
Petitioner must be referring to
CSC Resolution No. 04-0552 dated
[14] Rollo, p. 4.
[15] SEC. 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:
x x x x
(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. (Italics ours.)
[16] 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:
(e) Causing any undue injury to
any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official
administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers
and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of
licences or permits or other concessions.
[17] Rollo, p. 175.
[18] Article XI, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution:
The Office of the Ombudsman shall
have the following powers, functions, and duties:
(1) Investigate on its own, or
on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official,
employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal,
unjust, improper, or inefficient.
(2) Direct, upon complaint or at
its own instance, any public official or employee of the Government, or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as of any
government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter, to perform
and expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct
any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties.
(3) Direct the officer concerned
to take appropriate action against a public official or employee at fault, and
recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and
ensure compliance therewith.
(4) Direct the officer
concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law, to furnish it with copies of documents relating to contracts
or transactions entered into by his office involving the disbursement or use of
public funds or properties, and report any irregularity to the Commission on
Audit for appropriate action.
(5) Request any government
agency for assistance and information necessary in the discharge of its
responsibilities, and to examine, if necessary, pertinent records and
documents.
(6) Publicize matters covered by
its investigation when circumstances so warrant and with due prudence.
(7) Determine the causes of
inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and corruption in the Government
and make recommendations for their elimination and the observance of high
standards of ethics and efficiency.
(8) Promulgate its rules of
procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such functions or duties as
may be provided by law.
[19] 390 Phil. 912 (2000).
[20] Fuentes, Jr. v.
Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 164865,
[21] Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
101978,
[22] Cabrera v. Lapid, G.R. No.
129098,
[23] Rollo, pp. 39-48.
[24] Reyes v. Atienza, G.R.
No. 152243,
[25] Mamburao, Inc. v. Office of the Ombudsman, 398
Phil. 762, 817-819.
[26] Atty. Serapio v.
Sandiganbayan (Third Division), 444 Phil. 499, 528-529 (2003).
[27] Rollo, p. 19.
[28] Sistoza v. Desierto,
437 Phil. 117, 130 (2002); Venus v.
Desierto, 358 Phil. 675, 694 (1998).
[29] Rollo, pp.
44-45.
[30]
[31] Rollo, pp. 45-48.
[32] Avila, Sr. v. Sandiganbayan, 366 Phil. 698, 702-703 (1999), citing Enrile v. Salazar, G.R. Nos. 92163-64, 5 June 1990, 186 SCRA 217, 230.
[33] .Garcia-Rueda v. Pascasio, 344 Phil. 323, 329 (1997).
[34] Office of the Ombudsman v.