GR 147097; (June, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 147097; June 5, 2009
Carmelo F. Lazatin, Marino A. Morales, Teodoro L. David and Angelito A. Pelayo, Petitioners, vs. Hon. Aniano A. Desierto as Ombudsman, and Sandiganbayan, Third Division, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, including then Congressman Carmelo F. Lazatin, were charged before the Office of the Ombudsman with Illegal Use of Public Funds and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019). The complaint alleged irregularities in the use of Lazatin’s 1996 Countrywide Development Fund (CDF), where he acted as proponent, implementer, disbursing officer, and recipient of checks, thereby allegedly converting the funds. After preliminary investigation, Informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan. Upon petitioners’ motions, the Sandiganbayan ordered a re-evaluation. The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) subsequently issued a Resolution recommending dismissal of the cases for insufficient evidence.
The Ombudsman, however, upon review by the Office of Legal Affairs (OLA), disapproved the OSP’s dismissal resolution and ordered the aggressive prosecution of the cases. The cases were returned to the Sandiganbayan for trial. Petitioners then filed this petition for certiorari, arguing the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion by overturning the OSP’s recommendation.
ISSUE
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in disapproving the OSP’s Resolution recommending dismissal and in ordering the continuation of the criminal prosecution against petitioners.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court first addressed petitioners’ constitutional challenge against R.A. No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989), which integrated the OSP into the Office of the Ombudsman and granted it prosecutorial powers. The Court held this issue was already settled in Acop v. Office of the Ombudsman, ruling that paragraph 8, Section 13, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution explicitly allows Congress to bestow additional functions upon the Ombudsman by law. Therefore, R.A. No. 6770 is constitutional, and the Ombudsman possesses the power of control and supervision over the OSP, including the authority to approve, reverse, or modify its resolutions.
On the claim of grave abuse of discretion, the Court reiterated that such abuse implies a capricious, whimsical, or despotic exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The Ombudsman’s act of disapproving the OSP’s resolution after a review by the OLA was a valid exercise of its statutory power of control and supervision. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that this exercise was arbitrary or done in evasion of a positive duty. The Court also noted that the Sandiganbayan was improperly impleaded as a respondent, as the petition questioned only the Ombudsman’s action.