GR 157175; (June, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 157175; June 21, 2007
HILARIO P. SORIANO, Petitioner, vs. ZENAIDA A. CABAIS, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Hilario P. Soriano, President of the Rural Bank of San Miguel, Inc. (RBSM), filed a criminal complaint for perjury against respondent Zenaida A. Cabais, a comptroller designated by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). The complaint stemmed from two affidavits executed by Cabais in a separate Court of Appeals proceeding concerning the bank’s closure. In these affidavits, Cabais stated that RBSM, shortly before declaring a bank holiday, paid millions of pesos to entities owned or controlled by Soriano without supporting documents. Soriano alleged these statements were false and constituted perjury.
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila initially handled the complaint but forwarded it to the Office of the Ombudsman upon finding Cabais was a public officer acting in her official capacity. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, finding no probable cause for perjury. It held the statements appeared true based on supporting documents and, even if false, were made in good faith in Cabais’s capacity as BSP comptroller, negating the willful intent required for perjury. Soriano’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Soriano’s petition for review of the Ombudsman’s dismissal of his criminal complaint for perjury.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal based on a procedural error and the substantive findings of the Ombudsman. Procedurally, Soriano availed of the wrong remedy by filing a petition for review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals. The ruling in Fabian v. Desierto established that appeals via Rule 43 from Ombudsman decisions are permissible only for administrative disciplinary cases. For criminal or non-administrative cases, such as this perjury complaint, the proper remedy from an Ombudsman resolution finding no probable cause is to file an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 directly with the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion.
Substantively, even if a Rule 65 petition had been filed directly with the Supreme Court, it would have been dismissed. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the Ombudsman’s resolution. The Ombudsman’s finding of no probable cause was based on evidence that the payments mentioned in the affidavits were substantiated by debit advices and certifications, and that Cabais acted in good faith in her official capacity. The Court consistently refrains from interfering with the Ombudsman’s investigatory and prosecutorial discretion absent a clear showing of arbitrariness, which was absent here. Therefore, the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in dismissing the petition.