GR 166062; (September, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 166062; September 26, 2006
SALVADOR M. PEREZ and JUANITA A. APOSTOL, petitioners, vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (2nd Division) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, the Municipal Mayor and Municipal Treasurer of San Manuel, Pangasinan, were charged before the Sandiganbayan with violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for allegedly causing undue injury to the municipality through the purchase of a computer unit worth P120,000.00 via personal canvass, purportedly in violation of procurement rules under the Local Government Code. After the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon filed the Information, petitioners sought reinvestigation based on new evidence—a Commission on Audit reassessment suggesting the price difference was “not really that material.” The Sandiganbayan granted leave for a formal Motion for Reconsideration with the Ombudsman.
During reinvestigation, the Assistant Special Prosecutor recommended withdrawing the Information. However, the Special Prosecutor did not concur, instead endorsing a subordinate prosecutor’s memo recommending further fact-finding and the filing of an administrative case. The Ombudsman deferred action, directing the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) to study whether the act constituted giving “unwarranted benefits” under R.A. 3019, regardless of overpricing. The OSP then recommended amending the Information to allege this alternative mode. Petitioners challenged the Ombudsman’s authority to order this reinvestigation and the subsequent recommendation to amend the charge.
ISSUE
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in directing a reinvestigation and in the OSP’s subsequent recommendation to amend the Information.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court held the Ombudsman acted within his statutory authority. The petition was dismissed. The legal logic is anchored on the Ombudsman’s constitutionally and statutorily mandated powers of supervision and control over the OSP. Under R.A. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989), the Ombudsman has the power to “direct and control” the OSP, which is constitutionally an organic component of his office. The OSP’s power to prosecute is not autonomous; it is subject to the Ombudsman’s review and modification. The Ombudsman’s act of deferring a final resolution and instructing the OSP to re-evaluate the case under a different legal theory (giving unwarranted benefits) is a valid exercise of this supervisory power to ensure the correct application of law.
The Court further ruled that the Ombudsman’s directive did not violate the petitioners’ right against double jeopardy, as jeopardy had not yet attached—the petitioners had not been arraigned. The authority to reinvestigate includes the authority to cause the amendment of the Information if the evidence so warrants, provided it does not prejudice the accused’s substantial rights. The Ombudsman’s actions were aimed at determining the proper legal characterization of the alleged acts, which is within his discretion to ensure the faithful execution of laws. No grave abuse of discretion, defined as capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment, was found.