G.R. Nos. 140619-24; March 9, 2001
BENEDICTO E. KUIZON, JOSELITO RANIERO J. DAAN AND ROSALINA T. TOLIBAS, petitioners, vs. HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, in his capacity as OMBUDSMAN and the HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, the Municipal Mayor, Treasurer, and Timekeeper of Bato, Leyte, were charged before the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) with Malversation and Falsification of Public Documents. The complaints, filed by Melanio Saporas, alleged that the signatures of casual laborers Zacarias Kuizon, Ceferino Cedejana, and Concordio Cedejana were forged on municipal payrolls for February 1995, and their salaries were unlawfully drawn despite them not having worked or received payment. The complainants specifically denied authoring the questioned signatures on the payrolls. In their defense, petitioners asserted the laborers did work and received their wages, submitting affidavits from co-workers to corroborate their claim. They argued the complainants’ denial of their own signatures was insufficient to establish probable cause without expert handwriting analysis.
The Ombudsman’s Graft Investigation Officer found probable cause, reasoning that the complainants’ specific denial of the signatures, coupled with petitioners’ failure to submit expert evidence to prove authenticity, created a prima facie case of falsification. The Ombudsman approved the recommendation, and corresponding Informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan. Petitioners filed this certiorari petition, arguing the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause based solely on the complainants’ denials without requiring expert examination of the disputed signatures.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause for Falsification and Malversation against the petitioners.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court held the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the inquiry is limited to whether the Ombudsman acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The Court found no such abuse. The determination of probable cause is an executive function vested in the Ombudsman. In a preliminary investigation, the prosecutor only determines whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty. The Ombudsman, in this case, correctly appreciated the evidence. The complainants’ categorical denial of their signatures on the payrolls, if true, directly established the falsity of the documents. While petitioners claimed the signatures were genuine, the Ombudsman was not obligated to order a handwriting expert examination. The choice of evidence to evaluate in determining probable cause is within the Ombudsman’s sound discretion. The finding was based on the evidence on record and was not arbitrary. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.