G.R. No. 112313 June 16, 1995
Bienvenido S. Evangelista, petitioner, vs. Sandiganbayan and Laura G. de Ocampo, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Laura G. de Ocampo filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman charging petitioner Bienvenido S. Evangelista, Mayor of Obando, Bulacan, with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. She alleged that Mayor Evangelista acted with manifest partiality and bad faith in denying her application for a locational clearance and mayor’s permit for a marine filling station, while improperly intervening in favor of another applicant, Adolfo Gonzales. After a preliminary investigation, Ombudsman Investigator Francisco Samala recommended the filing of an Information. The case underwent several reviews within the Office of the Ombudsman, resulting in conflicting recommendations from different prosecutors—some recommended filing the case, while others recommended dismissal.
The procedural confusion culminated when petitioner received a copy of an order (Annex “D”) that appeared to show Special Prosecutor Aniano Desierto concurring with a dismissal. However, the Office of the Solicitor General presented a different certified copy (Annex “1”) of the same order, which contained handwritten notations indicating that SP Desierto did not concur and, instead, recommended the approval of the Information. Based on the final review and the Ombudsman’s approval, an Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner moved to quash the Information, arguing it was invalid due to the prior dismissal of the complaint. The Sandiganbayan denied his motion.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to quash the Information, despite alleged irregularities in its filing due to conflicting resolutions within the Ombudsman’s office.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on the authority of the Ombudsman to determine the existence of a prima facie case and the finality of its approved recommendation. The Court found that the apparent discrepancy between the two certified copies of the order (Annex “D” and Annex “1”) was resolved by examining the subsequent, undisputed resolution from Prosecutor Manuel Corpuz. This later resolution clearly upheld the validity of the Information, with SP Desierto recommending its approval and Ombudsman Conrado Vasquez granting final approval.
The Court emphasized that the determination of a prima facie case is within the discretionary authority of the Ombudsman under R.A. 6770. The procedural reviews and internal disagreements among prosecutors are part of the preliminary investigation process and do not invalidate the final, approved Information. Petitioner’s reliance on an earlier copy suggesting dismissal was superseded by the final resolution and the Ombudsman’s conclusive action. Since a proper preliminary investigation was conducted where petitioner participated, the filed Information was regular. Therefore, no grave abuse of discretion attended the Sandiganbayan’s denial of the motion to quash. The petition was dismissed.