GR 138093; (February, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 138093; February 19, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND IGNACIO SALMINGO, petitioners, vs. EDWIN D. VELEZ (City Mayor), ELI G. ALMINAZA (City Accountant), ARTURO J. SIASON (Acting City Treasurer), ELADIO S. MONDRAGON, JR. (City Engineer), All of Silay City, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Ignacio Salmingo, a former member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Silay City, filed an affidavit-complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman charging the city mayor and other officials with multiple offenses. The charges stemmed from the procurement of a rock crusher and related heavy equipment. Salmingo alleged that the respondents, led by Mayor Edwin Velez, entered into a transaction grossly disadvantageous to the city by purchasing a non-functional, second-hand rock crusher without the required appropriation ordinance and Environmental Clearance Certificate. He further claimed the transaction caused an overdraft and that a portion of the loan proceeds remained unaccounted for.
After preliminary investigation, the Ombudsman found probable cause for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019 (entering into a contract manifestly disadvantageous to the government) and filed the corresponding Information with the Sandiganbayan. However, upon a reinvestigation prompted by the respondents’ motion, a new panel of investigators from the Office of the Ombudsman reversed the finding. This new panel concluded there was no probable cause, as the purchase was covered by a valid Sanggunian resolution, the equipment was not proven to be overpriced or non-functional, and the alleged overdraft was a separate administrative matter. The Ombudsman, through the Special Prosecutor, consequently filed a Motion to Withdraw the Information, which the Sandiganbayan granted.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the Office of the Ombudsman’s Motion to Withdraw the Information and dismissing the criminal case.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on the separation of the Ombudsman’s investigatory/prosecutorial powers and the court’s judicial discretion. The Court emphasized that the determination of probable cause is an executive function primarily vested in the Ombudsman. When the Ombudsman, through a reinvestigation, finds an absence of probable cause and moves to withdraw the information, it is merely exercising its constitutionally mandated prosecutorial power. Courts generally should not interfere with this exercise absent a clear case of grave abuse of discretion.
The Sandiganbayan, in granting the motion, was exercising its own sound judicial discretion to approve the dismissal, provided it does not impair the substantial rights of the accused or the People’s right to due process. In this case, the Sandiganbayan’s reliance on the Ombudsman’s revised finding—that the elements of the crime were not sufficiently established—was a proper judicial act. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Sandiganbayan’s action was done in a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary manner amounting to a denial of due process. Therefore, its resolution was affirmed.