G.R. No. 162808 April 22, 2008
FELICIANO GALVANTE, petitioner, vs. HON. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices, BIENVENIDO C. BLANCAFLOR, Director, DENNIS L. GARCIA, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer, SPO4 RAMIL AVENIDO, PO1 EDDIE DEGRAN, PO1 VALENTINO RUFANO, and PO1 FEDERICO BALOLOT, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Feliciano Galvante, a retired police officer, filed a criminal complaint for arbitrary detention, illegal search, and grave threats against several police officers (private respondents). He alleged that on May 14, 2001, the respondents blocked his vehicle, pointed their firearms at him, and searched his jeep without a warrant, resulting in the confiscation of a .38 caliber pistol and ammunition covered by an expired memorandum receipt. He was subsequently detained. Based on this confiscation, an Information for Illegal Possession of Firearms was filed against Galvante. Concurrently, he pursued administrative and criminal complaints against the officers.
The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the criminal complaint for lack of probable cause. It found that the search of the vehicle was incidental to a lawful arrest, as the officers allegedly saw a firearm tucked in Galvante’s waist, constituting a crime committed in their presence. The Ombudsman also noted that Galvante later executed an Affidavit of Desistance, stating he was no longer interested in pursuing the case and that the officers may have merely been following orders. Galvante filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari and mandamus.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint against the private respondents for lack of probable cause.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that the determination of probable cause is an executive function within the Ombudsman’s discretion. Judicial review is limited to checking for arbitrariness or grave abuse, not re-evaluating the evidence. The Ombudsman’s finding that the warrantless search was valid as incidental to a lawful arrest was a factual conclusion supported by the records, including the officers’ claim of seeing the firearm on Galvante’s person.
The Court further held that the Affidavit of Desistance, while not automatically absolving the respondents, corroborated the Ombudsman’s finding of lack of criminal intent. Galvante’s own statement therein, accepting that the officers may have been merely following orders, undermined the allegation of malicious intent necessary for the crimes charged. The Ombudsman’s resolution was based on a considered evaluation of the conflicting affidavits and did not constitute a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment. Therefore, no grave abuse of discretion warranting the issuance of certiorari or mandamus was present.