G.R. No. 108251 ; January 31, 1996
CEFERINO S. PAREDES, JR. and MANSUETO J. HONRADA, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, Second Division; HONORABLE ANIANO DESIERTO, in his official capacity as Special Prosecutor; HONORABLE CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, in his official capacity as Ombudsman; and TEOFILO GELACIO, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a complaint filed by Teofilo Gelacio, then Vice Mayor of San Francisco, Agusan del Sur, against petitioners Ceferino S. Paredes, Jr. (then Provincial Governor), Mansueto J. Honrada (Clerk of Court of the MCTC), and Atty. Generoso Sansaet. Gelacio alleged that Honrada, in conspiracy with Paredes and Sansaet, falsely certified that an arraignment had been held in Criminal Case No. 1393, when in truth none had occurred, as certified by the presiding judge. These falsified certifications were allegedly used to secure the dismissal of another criminal case against Paredes in the Sandiganbayan on grounds of double jeopardy.
After a preliminary investigation, a Graft Investigation Officer recommended the filing of three informations for falsification of public documents, which the Ombudsman approved. Petitioners moved to quash the informations and, after its denial, sought a reinvestigation, arguing procedural flaws and bias. The Sandiganbayan initially directed a reinvestigation, but the Office of the Ombudsman denied the motion, finding no new evidence or due process violation. The Sandiganbayan then set the cases for trial, prompting petitioners to file this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin the proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan and the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for reinvestigation and proceeding with the criminal cases.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court held that the determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation is an executive function, primarily vested in the prosecutor. Judicial review is limited to instances where the prosecutor commits grave abuse of discretion, which was not present here. The Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause was based on substantial evidence, including the retraction of co-respondent Atty. Sansaet and the certification of the presiding judge, and was not shown to be arbitrary or capricious.
Petitioners’ claim of political harassment was insufficient to warrant judicial interference. The Court ruled that to establish such harassment, it must be proven that the public prosecutor, not merely the private complainant, is acting in bad faith or has lent himself to a scheme with no other purpose than to persecute the accused. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the Office of the Ombudsman, an independent constitutional body, was under the influence of political enemies. The denial of the motion for reinvestigation was proper as it raised the same issues already resolved in the denied motion to quash, and no newly discovered evidence or denial of due process was substantiated. The trial must proceed to determine the merits of the case based on full evidence.