GR 167743; (November, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 167743; November 22, 2006
HILARIO P. SORIANO, Petitioner, vs. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO, HON. PLARIDEL OSCAR J. BOHOL, Graft Investigation Officer II, and RAMON R. GARCIA, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Hilario P. Soriano, President of Rural Bank of San Miguel, Inc., filed several criminal complaints with the Office of the Manila City Prosecutor. These included a complaint for perjury against Teodoro Hirang of the PDIC, a complaint for libel against PDIC President Norberto Nazareno, and a complaint for perjury against BSP comptroller Zenaida Cabais. The investigating assistant city prosecutors separately recommended the dismissal of the complaints against Hirang and Nazareno for lack of probable cause, which recommendations were approved by City Prosecutor Ramon R. Garcia. For the complaint against Cabais, Prosecutor Garcia, instead of approving the dismissal, forwarded the records to the Office of the Ombudsman, finding that Cabais was a public officer and the imputed act was related to her official duties.
Aggrieved, Soriano filed an affidavit-complaint with the Ombudsman against City Prosecutor Garcia for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, alleging gross inexcusable negligence and manifest partiality. He argued that Garcia acted with partiality in dismissing the cases against Hirang and Nazareno but forwarded the case against Cabais. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, finding no substantial evidence of bad faith or partiality. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal. Soriano then filed the instant petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint against City Prosecutor Ramon R. Garcia for violation of R.A. No. 3019.
RULING
No, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that a prosecutor’s discretion during preliminary investigation is generally not subject to judicial review unless exercised with grave abuse. For a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 to prosper, there must be evidence of bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence.
The Court found that City Prosecutor Garcia’s actions were in accordance with law and procedure. His approval of the dismissals in two cases was based on the investigating prosecutors’ findings of lack of probable cause, a conclusion within his authority. His act of forwarding the third case to the Ombudsman was a correct application of the Ombudsman-DOJ Circular No. 95-001, which mandates that complaints against public officers for acts done in relation to office be under the Ombudsman’s control. This differential treatment was not proof of partiality but a compliance with jurisdictional rules. Absent clear evidence of malicious intent or gross negligence, the Ombudsman’s finding of no probable cause against Garcia was sustained. The petition was denied for lack of merit.