G.R. No. 129904 ; March 16, 2000
Director Guillermo T. Domondon, petitioner, vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan, Second Division; Honorable Aniano A. Desierto, in his official capacity as Ombudsman; Honorable Francisco A. Villa, in his capacity as Overall Deputy Ombudsman; and Leonardo P. Tamayo, in his official capacity as Deputy Special Prosecutor & concurrent Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Special Prosecutor; respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Guillermo T. Domondon, a former PNP official, was charged in multiple informations before different divisions of the Sandiganbayan for alleged irregularities in PNP fund transactions in 1992, involving ghost purchases and false issuances. Specifically, in Criminal Case No. 20574, he was accused of violating the Anti-Graft Law for approving the release of two Advices of Sub-Allotments totaling P20 million. Petitioner filed a motion to consolidate this case with four other related cases pending before another Sandiganbayan division. The First Division of the Sandiganbayan initially deferred action on the consolidation.
Subsequently, the Office of the Ombudsman, through its prosecutors, issued conflicting recommendations. One prosecutor recommended amending the information in Crim. Case No. 20574 to exclude petitioner. However, this recommendation was later disapproved by Ombudsman Aniano Desierto, acting on the recommendation of Overall Deputy Ombudsman Francisco Villa, who instead moved for the admission of an amended information that retained petitioner as an accused. The Ombudsman also denied petitioner’s motion for consolidation of the cases.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in: (1) denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and proceeding with his prosecution in Crim. Case No. 20574, and (2) denying his motion for consolidation of the related cases.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman. The Court reiterated the well-established doctrine that the Ombudsman has full discretionary authority to determine whether a criminal case should be filed and against whom. This power is founded on constitutional and statutory mandates, and the Court will not interfere with its exercise absent a clear showing of grave abuse, which implies a capricious, whimsical, or despotic exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
The Court held that petitioner failed to demonstrate such abuse. The Ombudsman’s decision to proceed with the prosecution, based on its finding of probable cause that petitioner’s approval of the fund releases caused undue injury to the government, was within its investigatory and prosecutorial prerogative. The mere existence of conflicting recommendations within the Ombudsman’s office does not equate to grave abuse; the final discretion rests with the Ombudsman himself. Regarding the denial of consolidation, the Court ruled that this is a matter primarily addressed to the sound discretion of the Sandiganbayan, not the Ombudsman. Since the cases were already pending in court, the proper forum for a consolidation plea was the Sandiganbayan. The Ombudsman’s denial of the motion was thus not an abuse of discretion. The petition was merely a dilatory tactic to avoid arraignment.