GR 145743; (August, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 145743-89; August 10, 2007
ANTONIO P. CALINGIN, Petitioner, vs. ANIANO A. DESIERTO as Ombudsman, and The SANDIGANBAYAN, Second Division, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Antonio P. Calingin, former Mayor of Claveria, Misamis Oriental, was involved in the municipality’s Bahay Ticala Housing Project, funded by a bond flotation. The project was marred by irregularities. A Commission on Audit (COA) special audit revealed a significant financial loss, with project accomplishments valued at only ₱4.47 million against total disbursements of ₱10.37 million. The audit flagged multiple violations, including the illegal use of bond proceeds for other purposes, disbursements made without proper accounting, and payments to the mayor instead of creditors.
Crucially, the audit found that Mayor Calingin approved rental payments for heavy equipment to PSB Enterprises, Inc., a company managed by his son, Rocky Calingin, without public bidding or a proper contract. The Office of the Ombudsman, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor, initially recommended the dismissal of charges against Calingin and his co-accused. However, then Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto disapproved this recommendation and instead issued a Resolution dated July 20, 2000, recommending their prosecution for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019) and Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code (Illegal Use of Public Funds).
ISSUE
Whether or not the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in disapproving the Special Prosecutor’s recommendation to dismiss the charges and instead recommending the prosecution of petitioner Antonio P. Calingin.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on the hierarchical relationship and constitutional mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Court emphasized that under the Constitution and R.A. No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989), the Office of the Special Prosecutor is a mere subordinate of the Ombudsman. The Special Prosecutor’s powers to investigate and prosecute are exercised only under the Ombudsman’s supervision and control.
Citing Perez v. Sandiganbayan, the Court defined “control” as the power of a superior officer to alter, modify, nullify, or set aside the actions of a subordinate and to substitute his own judgment. Therefore, the Ombudsman, as the superior officer, possessed the full authority to review, reject, and overturn the subordinate Special Prosecutor’s recommendation to dismiss. His act of disapproving the dismissal and ordering prosecution was a valid exercise of his constitutional power of control and his mandated duty to investigate acts of public officials that appear illegal. Finding no capricious or whimsical exercise of power, the Court dismissed the petition for certiorari.