G.R. No. 137237 September 17, 2002
ANTONIO PROSPERO ESQUIVEL and MARK ANTHONY ESQUIVEL, petitioners, vs. THE HON. OMBUDSMAN, THE SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HERMINIGILDO EDUARDO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Antonio Prospero Esquivel (Municipal Mayor of Jaen, Nueva Ecija) and Mark Anthony “Eboy” Esquivel (Barangay Captain of Barangay Apo, Jaen) were charged by PO2 Herminigildo C. Eduardo and SPO1 Modesto P. Catacutan before the PNP-CIDG with illegal arrest, arbitrary detention, maltreatment, attempted murder, and grave threats. The charges stemmed from an incident on March 14, 1998, where petitioners, accompanied by police officers and an LTO officer, allegedly disarmed PO2 Eduardo at his parents’ house, forced him into a vehicle, and brought him to the Jaen Municipal Hall. During the trip, Mayor Esquivel allegedly mauled Eduardo with a firearm and threatened to kill him. At the municipal hall, Barangay Captain Esquivel allegedly shoved Eduardo into a hut, and Mayor Esquivel ordered a police officer to kill him and create a scenario. Mayor Esquivel also allegedly struck Eduardo in the nape, causing him to lose consciousness. Upon regaining consciousness, Eduardo was forced to sign a statement in the police blotter that he was in good physical condition before his release. Eduardo surmised the maltreatment was due to his enforcement activities against jueteng and crime syndicates with alleged connections to the mayor. After preliminary investigation, the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon recommended indicting both petitioners for less serious physical injuries and Mayor Esquivel alone for grave threats. The Ombudsman approved the resolution, and corresponding Informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied. They were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Petitioners then filed this special civil action for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, assailing the Ombudsman’s resolution and order, and challenging the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction.
ISSUE
1. Did the Ombudsman commit grave abuse of discretion in directing the filing of the Informations against petitioners?
2. Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction over the criminal cases?
RULING
1. No, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court maintains a consistent policy of non-interference in the Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause, provided there is no grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners failed to establish such grave abuse. Their argument that the Ombudsman disregarded PO2 Eduardo’s admission of being in good physical condition upon release was unavailing. This admission was not presented during the preliminary investigation but only in the motion for reconsideration. Furthermore, Eduardo’s admission pertained only to the act of signing the document, not to the truthfulness of its contents. This is an evidentiary matter best resolved in a full-blown trial. Certiorari is not the proper remedy to challenge the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause, as the Court is not a trier of facts.
2. No, the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction. Under Republic Act No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officials with Salary Grade 27 and higher. A Municipal Mayor holds a position with Salary Grade 27 as prescribed under the Local Government Code. Therefore, Mayor Esquivel, as a municipal mayor, falls under the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. While his brother, Barangay Captain Mark Anthony Esquivel, does not hold a position with Salary Grade 27, the Supreme Court, citing previous rulings, held that the Sandiganbayan retains jurisdiction over all the accused in a case where at least one of the principal accused is a public official with Salary Grade 27 or higher. Since Mayor Esquivel is a principal accused with Salary Grade 27, the Sandiganbayan correctly took cognizance of the cases against both petitioners.
