GR 152789; (October, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152789 ; October 21, 2004
ATTY. ISAGANI B. RIZON, petitioner, vs. HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, in his Capacity as The Ombudsman, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Isagani B. Rizon, the Municipal Mayor of Baroy, Lanao del Norte, was charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Information alleged that in April 1998, he purchased 552 sacks of rice from Belma’s Store without the required Sangguniang Bayan resolution, negotiated for the issuance of blank receipts, and made it appear that 552 sacks were delivered when only 50 to 60 sacks were actually received, causing undue injury to the government. The charge was based on a preliminary investigation where the store owner, Isabelo Seno, admitted to issuing blank receipts and that only about 50-60 sacks were delivered.
After the filing of the Information, petitioner moved for and was granted a reinvestigation. He submitted new evidence, including an audit report recommending the dismissal of the criminal charge for lack of factual basis (though it held him civilly liable for a refund) and a recanting affidavit from Seno. The Ombudsman Prosecutor recommended the withdrawal of the Information. However, respondent Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto disapproved this recommendation, finding the new evidence insufficient to overturn the earlier finding of probable cause.
ISSUE
Did the Ombudsman commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in disapproving the withdrawal of the Information against petitioner?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court held that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that a finding of probable cause merely requires sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty. The Ombudsman, in evaluating the reinvestigation results, correctly found that the new evidence did not negate probable cause. The audit report’s recommendation for dismissal was not conclusive on the criminal aspect, and the recanting affidavit of Seno was rightly accorded minimal weight, as affidavits of recantation are notoriously unreliable and cannot prevail over original testimonial evidence given under oath.
The Court reiterated the well-established doctrine of non-interference with the Ombudsman’s constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutory powers, absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. The Ombudsman’s discretion to determine whether a criminal case should be filed is based on his assessment of the evidence, including the credibility of witnesses. His decision to maintain the prosecution, after considering the reinvestigation results, was a valid exercise of this discretion. Since petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Ombudsman’s action was whimsical, capricious, or patently unjust, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.