G.R. No. 118141 September 5, 1997
LEONILA GARCIA-RUEDA, petitioner, vs. WILFRED L. PASCASIO, RAUL R. ARNAU, ABELARDO L. APORTADERA JR., Honorable CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, all of the Office of the Ombudsman; JESUS F. GUERRERO, PORFIRIO MACARAEG, and GREGORIO A. ARIZALA, all of the Office of the City Prosecutor, Manila, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Leonila Garcia-Rueda’s husband died after surgery. The NBI, following an autopsy, recommended filing a case for Homicide through Reckless Imprudence against the attending surgeon and anaesthesiologist. The preliminary investigation at the Manila City Prosecutor’s Office became protracted and inconsistent. The case was re-raffled multiple times among different prosecutors, yielding contradictory recommendations—some exonerating the surgeon, others the anaesthesiologist. The final resolution, approved by respondents City Prosecutors Guerrero, Macaraeg, and Arizala, exonerated the anaesthesiologist. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a graft complaint against these prosecutors before the Office of the Ombudsman, alleging manifest partiality under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 . The Ombudsman dismissed her complaint for lack of evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can review the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman, and if so, whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the graft complaint against the city prosecutors.

RULING

The petition is dismissed. The general rule, as established in Ocampo v. Ombudsman, is that courts will not interfere with the Ombudsman’s exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion. This Court may only review the Ombudsman’s action via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 if there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion, meaning a capricious, arbitrary, or despotic exercise of power. The Court found no such abuse in this case. The Ombudsman acted within its authority in evaluating the evidence and concluding that the conflicting resolutions of the various prosecutors, while regrettable, did not constitute sufficient proof of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross negligence required for a violation of the Anti-Graft Law. The existence of divergent legal opinions among prosecutors, by itself, does not establish corrupt intent. The proper remedy for the petitioner regarding the dismissal of the criminal case against the doctors was an appeal to the Secretary of Justice, not a graft case against the prosecutors. The Ombudsman’s dismissal was thus a valid exercise of discretion, not subject to judicial overturn.