GR 171500; (April, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 171500; April 30, 2008
FERNANDO C. PARMA, JR., petitioner, vs. THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON and MAYOR LOURDES SEÑAR, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Fernando C. Parma, Jr., a municipal councilor of Magarao, Camarines Sur, was charged by Mayor Lourdes Señar with falsification of official documents. The charges stemmed from Parma’s liquidation of travel cash advances for official trips to Manila to follow up a Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) donation for a medical mission. Señar alleged that Parma submitted spurious certificates of attendance from the PCSO to support his liquidation. The PCSO later disowned these certificates in a letter. Based on this, Señar filed multiple complaints with the Office of the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman directed Parma to file his counter-affidavit in one of the criminal cases, docketed as OMB-L-C-05-0296-C. Parma failed to file his counter-affidavit. Consequently, the Ombudsman issued a Resolution finding probable cause to indict him for falsification under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. Parma filed a motion for reconsideration, explaining his failure was due to a renal ailment and attaching his belated counter-affidavit and an exculpatory witness affidavit. The Ombudsman denied the motion.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Parma’s motion for reconsideration and request to admit his belated counter-affidavit and evidence.
RULING
No, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 requires a showing that the respondent tribunal, board, or officer acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
The Court found that the Ombudsman acted within its discretionary authority. The Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause is an executive function, based on its determination that sufficient evidence exists to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty. Parma’s failure to submit his counter-affidavit despite notice gave the Ombudsman sufficient basis to resolve the case based on the complaint and evidence on record. The denial of his motion for reconsideration, which sought to introduce evidence after the resolution, was a proper exercise of the Ombudsman’s discretion to control its proceedings. The Court held that such discretionary acts, absent a clear showing of arbitrariness, do not constitute grave abuse of discretion warranting judicial intervention. The petition was dismissed for failing to meet the stringent requirements for certiorari.