GR 158613; (February, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 158613 -14 ; February 22, 2006
EMMANUEL T. PONTEJOS, Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and RESTITUTO AQUINO, Respondents.
FACTS
Restituto Aquino filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against Emmanuel Pontejos, a Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) arbiter, and others. Aquino alleged that Pontejos, while acting as a hearing officer on cases involving Aquino, conspired to solicit money in exchange for a favorable decision. He claimed Pontejos demanded and received money, offered legal services, and prepared legal pleadings for him despite being the adjudicating officer. Supporting affidavits and an NBI report indicated Pontejos authored drafts of decisions and petitions for Aquino. A check for Php 10,000, encashed by co-respondent Carmencita Atos, was also presented.
The respondents denied the allegations. Pontejos argued the meetings never occurred, no money was received, and he decided the cases against Aquino, making the claims implausible. Atos initially claimed the check was payment for food items but later recanted, stating she encashed it for Pontejos and attended meetings where legal services were discussed. After preliminary investigation, the Ombudsman found probable cause to charge Pontejos with Estafa, Direct Bribery, and Unauthorized Practice of Profession under R.A. 6713.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to charge Pontejos.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court upheld the Ombudsman’s finding, ruling it was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized the Ombudsman’s constitutionally mandated independence and broad investigatory and prosecutorial powers. Judicial review of its findings is limited to instances of grave abuse of discretion, which implies a capricious, whimsical, or despotic exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
The Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause, based on the submitted affidavits and documents, was found to be supported by substantial evidence. The recantation of Atos and the NBI report linking Pontejos to the draft pleadings provided a reasonable ground to believe a crime was committed and the petitioner was probably guilty. The Court clarified that probable cause does not require certainty of conviction but merely a belief based on actual facts. The Ombudsman’s evaluation of the evidence and credibility of witnesses is generally beyond judicial interference. Since the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Ombudsman acted in a capricious or arbitrary manner, the Court found no basis to overturn its ruling. The petition was dismissed.