G.R. No. 168578 September 30, 2008
NIETO A. RACHO, Petitioner, vs. HON. PRIMO C. MIRO, HON. VIRGINIA PALANCA-SANTIAGO, and HON. ANTONIO T. ECHAVEZ, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Nieto A. Racho, a BIR employee, was accused of accumulating wealth disproportionate to his income based on bank certifications showing deposits of over P5.7 million. The initial graft investigation officer dismissed the complaint after the anonymous complainant withdrew it, finding the photocopied bank documents insufficient as substantial evidence. However, Ombudsman Director Virginia Palanca-Santiago disapproved this dismissal. She found Racho administratively liable and, in a separate criminal case, found probable cause for falsification of his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) for underdeclaring his assets. An Information was filed in the RTC. The Court of Appeals later annulled the Ombudsman’s memoranda and ordered a reinvestigation.
Upon reinvestigation, the Ombudsman reaffirmed its finding of probable cause for falsification and recommended amending the Information to include Racho’s failure to disclose business connections. Racho’s motion for reconsideration was denied. He then filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus, arguing the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion by disregarding the appellate court’s order for a genuine reinvestigation and by relying on unauthenticated evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to charge Racho with falsification of public document.

RULING

No, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 only lies when there is a clear showing of capricious, arbitrary, or whimsical exercise of power. The Court’s duty is not to review the Ombudsman’s factual findings but to determine if its exercise of investigative and prosecutorial powers was tainted with grave abuse. The determination of probable cause is an executive function, and the Ombudsman has broad discretion in this realm. The Court found that the Ombudsman, upon reinvestigation, complied with the CA directive by requiring Racho to submit his comment and supporting documents. The Ombudsman evaluated Racho’s explanations, including his claim that the bank accounts belonged to his siblings, but found them insufficient to overturn the prima facie case based on the significant discrepancy between his declared SALN assets and the substantial bank deposits under his name. The Ombudsman’s conclusion was based on substantial evidence and was not arrived at arbitrarily. Therefore, absent a clear showing of grave abuse, the Court upheld the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause and the denial of Racho’s motion for reconsideration.