GR 133347; (April, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 133347; April 23, 2010
ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, EUGENIO LOPEZ, JR., AUGUSTO ALMEDA-LOPEZ, and OSCAR M. LOPEZ, Petitioners, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO, EXEQUIEL B. GARCIA, MIGUEL V. GONZALES, and SALVADOR (BUDDY) TAN, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation and its officers, filed a criminal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against respondents, including Roberto S. Benedicto, for various violations of the Revised Penal Code. The complaint stemmed from the alleged forcible takeover of ABS-CBN’s assets following the declaration of martial law, implicating a letter-agreement dated June 8, 1973. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the Ombudsman’s resolution. The Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the civil law concept of ratifying the 1973 agreement is irrelevant to criminal liability and that the criminal complaints against the deceased respondents should continue to prosecute their possible civil liability.
ISSUE
The core issues are: (1) Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding no probable cause to indict respondents; and (2) Whether the criminal complaints against respondents who died during the pendency of the case should be continued.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration. On the first issue, the Court reiterated that its review in a certiorari petition is limited to determining whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding no probable cause. The Court found none. It emphasized that the Ombudsman possesses investigatory and prosecutorial discretion, and the Court will not interfere absent a clear showing of caprice or arbitrariness. The petitioners’ choice to file a claim against Benedicto’s estate under the Rules of Court, rather than pursue other avenues, undermined their challenge to the validity of the letter-agreement.
On the second issue, the Court applied the settled rule in People v. Bayotas. The death of an accused pending appeal extinguishes criminal liability and the civil liability arising exclusively from the crime (ex delicto). While a civil liability based on other sources of obligation (like law or contract) may survive, it must be pursued via a separate civil action against the estate. Since respondents Benedicto, Tan, and Gonzales died during the pendency of the case, and no independent civil action was filed, the criminal complaints against them were correctly dropped. The Court found no novel question of law presented to warrant an en banc referral.