G.R. No. 135496 ; July 30, 2002
LONGOS RURAL WATERWORKS AND SANITATION ASSOCIATION, INC. (LRWSAI) represented by MIGUEL ORTEGA and ANDRES D. MANUEL, SR., petitioners, vs. HON. ANIANO A. DISIERTO, in his capacity as Ombudsman; VIRGILIO ORTEGA, AMANDO BORLONGAN, JR., ARMANDO SILOT, SERVANDO SANTOS, EVELYN AQUINO and VIRGILIO AQUINO, respondents.

FACTS

An Information for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was filed against private respondents, barangay officials, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. The charge stemmed from their alleged unlawful takeover of the Longos Rural Waterworks and Sanitation Association, Inc. (LRWSAI). Upon motion of the private respondents, the RTC granted a reinvestigation and referred the case back to the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB)-Luzon. After reinvestigation, OMB-Luzon reversed its prior recommendation and ordered the dismissal of the case. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration with OMB-Luzon, which was denied. They then elevated an appeal to the Ombudsman Central Office.
The Ombudsman Central Office denied the appeal, citing the ruling in Crespo v. Mogul. It reasoned that once an Information is filed in court, jurisdiction over the case is vested in the court. Therefore, any subsequent disposition, including a recommendation for dismissal after reinvestigation, must be submitted to the court for appropriate action. The Ombudsman found no indication that the RTC had acted on the recommendation to withdraw the Information or that petitioners had sought leave of court before filing their motion for reconsideration, thus constraining it from acting on the appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners’ appeal from the OMB-Luzon resolution recommending dismissal, on the ground that leave of court was required under the Crespo doctrine.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court clarified the application of Crespo v. Mogul. The rule is that once an Information is filed in court, the preliminary investigation is terminated, and the court acquires jurisdiction over the case. Any subsequent action by the prosecutor, such as a reinvestigation or a recommendation for dismissal, requires court permission and must be submitted for the court’s approval. In this case, it was the RTC itself that ordered the reinvestigation and referred the matter back to OMB-Luzon. This act constituted a deferment to the prosecutorial arm to reconsider the evidence. Consequently, the OMB-Luzon resolution recommending dismissal was a final action on that referral.
The Court held that while a motion for reconsideration of such an OMB resolution is permissible under its own rules, the denial of petitioners’ appeal by the Ombudsman Central Office was not based solely on the technical lack of leave of court. The Ombudsman ultimately found no compelling reason to reverse the finding of lack of probable cause. More critically, the Court emphasized that with the Information already filed, the RTC is the final arbiter on whether to proceed with the criminal case. The general policy is non-interference with the Ombudsman’s exercise of investigatory and prosecutory powers, absent a clear case of grave abuse of discretion. No such exception was present here. Therefore, the proper forum to challenge the dismissal was the RTC, which could approve or reject the prosecution’s recommendation upon submission.