GR 121017; (February, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 121017 February 17, 1997
OLIVIA B. CAMANAG, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JESUS F. GUERRERO, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Olivia B. Camanag was listed as having failed the May 1993 CPA Licensure Examinations. However, in a December 1993 Personal Data Sheet filed with the BIR, she indicated she had passed. Following an anonymous complaint, the Office of the Ombudsman conducted a fact-finding investigation. An Ombudsman investigator executed an affidavit-complaint and, after a preliminary investigation, found probable cause for falsification of public documents. The Deputy Ombudsman then deputized the City Prosecutor of Manila to file the corresponding Informations.
The deputized City Prosecutor conducted his own preliminary investigation, considering additional evidence from the PRC confirming petitioner’s failure. He issued a Resolution finding sufficient ground to hold petitioner for trial. Three Informations for falsification were subsequently filed in the Regional Trial Court. Petitioner then filed the instant consolidated petition, challenging the Ombudsman’s power to prosecute and seeking to annul the proceedings.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Office of the Ombudsman possesses the constitutional and statutory authority to conduct preliminary investigations and to directly undertake criminal prosecutions through its own prosecutors or by deputized prosecutors.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative, denying the petition. The legal logic is anchored on a clear interpretation of the 1987 Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act). The Constitution explicitly grants the Office of the Ombudsman the power to “investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official” (Article XI, Section 13). The Court held that the power to investigate necessarily includes the power to conduct a preliminary investigation, which is merely an executive function to determine probable cause for filing an information.
Furthermore, R.A. No. 6770 operationalizes this constitutional grant. Section 15 of the law explicitly authorizes the Ombudsman to conduct preliminary investigations. Section 11(4a) empowers it to “direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or employee at fault, and recommend his prosecution.” More decisively, Section 15 mandates that the Ombudsman’s findings and recommendations for prosecution “may be brought to the proper court.” The Court construed this as a clear grant of prosecutorial power, allowing the Ombudsman to file cases directly or through deputized prosecutors. The deputization of the City Prosecutor in this case was a valid exercise of this authority. The petition for prohibition to enjoin the criminal proceedings was also denied, as none of the recognized exceptions to the rule against enjoining criminal prosecutions were present.