GR 160772; (July, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160772; July 13, 2009
HILARIO P. SORIANO, Petitioner, vs. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO, HON. MARILOU B. ANCHETA-MEJIA, Graft Investigation Officer II, and ATTY. CELEDONIO P. BALASBAS, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Hilario P. Soriano filed a criminal complaint for falsification against Mely S. Palad with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. Assistant City Prosecutor Celedonio P. Balasbas issued a resolution recommending the filing of an information, which was approved by his superiors. Subsequently, Palad filed a motion to reopen the case, alleging she was not served a subpoena. The motion was recommended for approval by a superior prosecutor and ultimately approved by the City Prosecutor. Consequently, Balasbas issued a subpoena to reopen the preliminary investigation.
Soriano then filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against Balasbas for alleged violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft Law). He contended that by reopening the case, Balasbas, through manifest partiality or gross negligence, gave Palad unwarranted advantage, causing undue injury to him. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, a decision upheld upon motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the complaint against Balasbas.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Ombudsman’s resolutions. The petition, filed under Rule 65 for certiorari, is a remedy to correct only errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. The Court emphasized that it will not interfere with the Ombudsman’s exercise of its constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutory powers absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.
The arguments raised by Soriano pertained to the Ombudsman’s appreciation of facts and evidence—specifically, whether Balasbas acted with bad faith or gross negligence in complying with a superior’s lawful order to reopen the case. The Court found these to be errors of judgment, not jurisdiction. The Ombudsman’s finding that Balasbas merely followed a directive and that the reopening was procedurally sound to afford the accused due process was within its discretionary authority. No caprice, whim, or arbitrariness was demonstrated in the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the complaint. Therefore, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion.