GR 120422; (September, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 120422 & 120428 September 27, 1995
CHIEF SUPT. ROMEO ACOP, et al. and PANFILO LACSON, et al., petitioners, vs. THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, et al., respondents.
FACTS
These consolidated petitions arose from the “Kuratong Baleleng” incident of May 18, 1995, where eleven suspected gang members were killed in an alleged shootout with composite police teams. Subsequently, witnesses, including police officers and relatives of the slain, alleged the killings were a summary execution, not a shootout. A letter-complaint for murder was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman, docketed as OMB-AFP-CRIM-95-0084. Deputy Ombudsman for the Military Manuel Casaclang, acting on the directive of the Acting Ombudsman to monitor various agency investigations into the incident, created a panel and, upon its evaluation report, ordered a preliminary investigation. He required the petitioners, police officers involved in the operation, to submit their counter-affidavits.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) whether jurisdiction over the complaint against the police officers lay with the Office of the Ombudsman or the Office of the Special Prosecutor; and (2) whether Deputy Ombudsman Casaclang committed grave abuse of discretion by ordering a preliminary investigation and requiring counter-affidavits without a prior preliminary evaluation of the complaint as seemingly required by its administrative rules.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions. On the jurisdictional issue, the Court upheld the Ombudsman’s primary jurisdiction. It clarified that the Office of the Special Prosecutor, while part of the Ombudsman under the Constitution, is primarily a prosecution arm for cases within the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. The Ombudsman itself retains the constitutional power to investigate any act or omission of any public official, including police officers. The Court further ruled that the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military has jurisdiction to investigate civilian personnel of the government, as the constitutional grant of power to the Ombudsman is plenary and not limited by the deputy’s title. The PNP, being a national and civilian force, falls under this investigative authority.
On the procedural issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion. It interpreted the requirement for a preliminary “evaluation” under the Ombudsman’s rules as a flexible, preliminary step meant to determine the proper course of action, not a rigid, detailed inquiry. The actions taken by Deputy Ombudsman Casaclang—monitoring ongoing probes, gathering documents from the Senate and CHR, and receiving a formal complaint with an attached PNP investigation report—constituted substantial compliance with this evaluative process. The subsequent order for a preliminary investigation was a logical and discretionary step well within his authority, absent any showing of capricious or whimsical exercise of power.