G.R. No. 132977. November 29, 2000.
MAYOR LUIS MONDIA, JR., ET AL., petitioners, vs. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN EDGARDO G. CANTON, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were charged with Murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) following a preliminary investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman. The RTC initially quashed the Informations, but the Supreme Court, in a prior case (G.R. Nos. 118813-14), set aside that order and directed the remand of the cases to the Ombudsman to complete the proceedings, specifically by furnishing petitioners a copy of its resolution and resolving any subsequent incidents. Instead of filing a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause, petitioners filed a “Motion to Set Hearing for Clarificatory Question,” citing conflicting affidavits from the complainant, Corazon Odelmo. The Deputy Ombudsman initially referred this motion to the Provincial Prosecutor but later revoked that directive and issued an order denying the motion for a clarificatory hearing.

ISSUE

Whether the Deputy Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners’ motion for a clarificatory hearing during the preliminary investigation.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the Deputy Ombudsman’s orders. The Court held that the Deputy Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to conduct a clarificatory hearing. The legal logic is anchored on the procedural rules governing preliminary investigations and the specific directives of the Court in its prior decision. The Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman explicitly allow an investigating officer to conduct a clarificatory hearing to clarify material facts, especially when requested by a party. This is a crucial component of a preliminary investigation, ensuring a thorough examination of the evidence. The Court’s earlier decision in G.R. Nos. 118813-14 mandated the completion of the preliminary investigation proceedings. By denying the motion for a clarificatory hearing—particularly in light of the complainant’s alleged conflicting affidavits and a subsequent affidavit of desistance—the Deputy Ombudsman disregarded this directive and the applicable procedural rules. The denial effectively prevented the proper resolution of a material incident (the affidavits) that could affect the finding of probable cause, thereby exceeding his jurisdiction. Consequently, the Deputy Ombudsman was ordered to conduct the clarificatory hearing to determine the voluntariness and due execution of the affidavits of desistance and to complete the preliminary investigation as previously directed.