G.R. No. 184130, June 29, 2015
SANDRA M. CAM, Petitioner, vs. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, in his Capacity as Acting Ombudsman, MOTHALIB C. ONOS, in his Capacity as Chairman of the Prosecution and Monitoring Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman, ROSANO A. OLIVA and LOURDES S. PADRE SAN JUAN, in their capacities as Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officers, IGNACIO “IGGY” ARROYO, JUAN MIGUEL “MIKEY” ARROYO and RESTITUTO MOSQUEDA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Sandra Cam executed a Complaint-Affidavit charging private respondents Ignacio “Iggy” Arroyo, Juan Miguel “Mikey” Arroyo, and Police General Restituto Mosqueda with protecting or coddling jueteng operations under Republic Act No. 9287. She alleged she acted as a depository for jueteng payola for Mosqueda and personally delivered money to the Arroyo respondents. Specifically, she claimed that starting August 2004, she collected money from jueteng operators, which was deposited into her bank accounts, and she subsequently turned over the cash to Mosqueda. She further alleged that in December 2004, upon Mosqueda’s instruction, she personally delivered bundles of money totaling ₱900,000 to Congressmen Iggy Arroyo (₱400,000) and Mikey Arroyo (₱500,000) at their congressional offices. She also claimed Mosqueda received vehicles (an Isuzu D-Max and a Toyota Revo) from jueteng funds and boasted of his connections to the Presidential Family and involvement in the “Jose Pidal” controversy.
The respondents denied the allegations. Mosqueda presented counter-affidavits, alibis (including a Certificate of Appearance), and supporting affidavits from individuals like Col. Gumban and hotel management to refute specific meetings and transactions. Iggy and Mikey Arroyo proffered blanket denials, asserting they had never met Cam and only saw her on television. Mikey Arroyo also noted a libel case had been filed against Cam. The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence, finding Cam’s allegations uncorroborated, improbable, and unsupported by documentary evidence, while the respondents’ defenses were supported by evidence. The Ombudsman denied Cam’s motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the complaint against the respondents for insufficiency of evidence.

RULING

No, the Office of the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the complaint. The Court held that the Ombudsman has full discretion to determine whether a criminal case should be filed based on the evidence before it. Its findings on the existence of probable cause are generally not reviewable by the Court, absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. In this case, the Ombudsman’s evaluation of the evidence was not arbitrary. It found Cam’s allegations to be uncorroborated, self-serving, and lacking in credible supporting evidence, while the respondents presented evidence contradicting her claims. The Ombudsman correctly applied the principle that in administrative and criminal complaints, the burden of proof lies with the complainant, and mere allegation is not evidence. The Court found no arbitrariness or grave abuse in the Ombudsman’s conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to establish probable cause. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.