GR 148944; (February, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148944; February 5, 2003
Mayor ALVIN B. GARCIA, petitioner, vs. Honorable PRIMO C. MIRO, in his capacity as Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Alvin B. Garcia, then Mayor of Cebu City, signed a three-year exclusive asphalt supply contract with F.E. Zuellig in May 1998. Following media reports on alleged anomalies in March 1999, the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas initiated an investigation. The Commission on Audit (COA) conducted a special audit, and a Special Prosecution Officer filed an affidavit-complaint against Garcia for alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The COA auditors submitted joint affidavits, asserting the contract was void for lack of appropriation, exceeded the authority granted by the Sangguniang Panlungsod, was manifestly disadvantageous to the city, and involved questionable advance payments and ghost deliveries.
The Special Prosecution Officer later resigned and was dropped as complainant. Garcia argued before the Ombudsman that this deprived him of his right to confront his accuser. The Ombudsman denied his motion to dismiss and directed him to file a counter-affidavit. Garcia filed the instant petition, contending the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion by proceeding with the investigation despite the complainant’s withdrawal and the alleged condonation of his administrative liability due to his subsequent re-election.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with the preliminary investigation and ordering petitioner to file a counter-affidavit.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court clarified that the condonation doctrine, which extinguishes administrative liability upon re-election for acts during a prior term, applies only to administrative cases, not to criminal prosecutions. The Ombudsman’s investigation here pertains to a criminal charge for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which is not barred by re-election.
On the procedural issue, the Court ruled that the withdrawal of the Special Prosecution Officer as complainant did not warrant dismissal. The officer was a nominal party; the real complainant in a public offense is the State, represented by the remaining complainants—the COA auditors. Their detailed affidavits, alleging specific violations under oath, constituted sufficient basis to require Garcia to submit a counter-affidavit. The Ombudsman acted within its investigatory and prosecutory powers to determine probable cause. The order to file a counter-affidavit was a proper exercise of discretion to afford Garcia due process and an opportunity to refute the serious allegations.