G.R. No. 167828 ; April 2, 2007
THE OMBUDSMAN, FACT-FINDING AND INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, Office of the Ombudsman, and PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION BUREAU, Office of the Ombudsman, Petitioners, vs. NESTOR S. VALEROSO, Respondent.

FACTS

The Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman filed a complaint against respondent Nestor S. Valeroso, a Director II at the Bureau of Internal Revenue, for Perjury and for administrative offenses of Dishonesty, Falsification of Official Documents, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The complaint alleged that Valeroso failed to disclose his ownership of several properties and his wife’s business interests in his sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) from 1995 to 2002, violating Republic Act No. 6713 . After Valeroso submitted his counter-affidavit and supplement, the Ombudsman, finding strong evidence of guilt for Dishonesty and an unexplained increase in net worth, issued an Order on June 10, 2004, placing him under preventive suspension for six months without pay.
Valeroso filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, seeking to nullify the preventive suspension order. He argued there was no strong evidence of guilt and that he was denied due process because the Ombudsman effectively changed the charge from non-disclosure of assets to one of unexplained wealth, depriving him of an opportunity to explain. The CA granted the petition, annulling the suspension order, ruling it was issued with grave abuse of discretion as Valeroso was not properly informed of the charge of unexplained increase in net worth.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the preventive suspension order against Valeroso.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA, and reinstated the preventive suspension order. The Court held that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The power to preventively suspend is expressly conferred by Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) when the evidence of guilt is strong and the charge involves dishonesty, among others. The requirement of “strong evidence” is satisfied by evidence more than mere suspicion but less than evidence beyond reasonable doubt, a standard met here given the discrepancies in the SALNs.
On due process, the Court ruled that the charge of Dishonesty based on non-disclosure in the SALN is intrinsically linked to the issue of unexplained wealth. The SALN is precisely the mechanism to monitor changes in a public official’s fortune and verify undisclosed properties. Valeroso was adequately informed through the complaint and had the opportunity to file counter-affidavits addressing the alleged omissions. Preventive suspension is a preliminary, non-penal measure to ensure an unhampered investigation; it does not adjudicate guilt. Therefore, no denial of due process occurred, as the right to be heard in administrative investigations is satisfied by the opportunity to explain one’s side, which was afforded. The CA’s reliance on a case involving a final order was misplaced, as a preventive suspension is interlocutory.