GR 135775; (October, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 135775 ; October 19, 2000
Emerenciano Espinosa, Fernandito Baronia, Bonifacio Belen and Lydia Ramos, petitioners, vs. Office of the Ombudsman, Joselito Ojeda, Jesus Pollante, Sr. and Sergio Asia, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mulanay, Quezon, filed a criminal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against respondents Mayor Joselito Ojeda, Municipal Treasurer Jesus Pollante Sr., and Private Secretary Sergio Asia. The complaint alleged violations of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) concerning Revenue Collection Clerk II Anita Bariata. Petitioners contended that Bariata, while a full-time student in Lucena City, continued to receive her salary based on Daily Time Records showing she reported for work in Mulanay, an impossibility given the six-hour travel distance, constituting an illegal disbursement of public funds.
The Ombudsman initially found probable cause and filed an Information before the Sandiganbayan. However, upon respondents’ motion for reinvestigation, which presented new evidence including certifications from Bariata’s professors that she had “special arrangements” for make-up classes, Special Prosecution Officer Cicero D. Jurado Jr. recommended dismissal of the case. The Ombudsman approved this recommendation, prompting petitioners to file this Petition for Certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint against respondents after reinvestigation.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized the constitutional and statutory independence of the Office of the Ombudsman in its investigatory and prosecutorial functions. The Court consistently refrains from interfering with its discretionary powers absent a clear showing of grave abuse, which amounts to a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
In this case, the Ombudsman’s reversal of its initial finding was based on a reassessment of evidence, including the new certifications indicating Bariata could have fulfilled both her academic and official duties through special arrangements. The determination of probable cause is an executive function within the Ombudsman’s discretion. The Court held that the Ombudsman’s factual findings, supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the dismissal orders were issued with arbitrariness or without factual basis. The mere disagreement with the Ombudsman’s evaluation does not constitute grave abuse of discretion warranting judicial intervention under Rule 65.