G.R. Nos. 189161 & 189173; March 21, 2012
Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, Petitioner, vs. Hon. Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez, Ombudsman; et al., and SSP Emmanuel Y. Velasco, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Judge Adoracion G. Angeles filed a criminal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against respondent Senior State Prosecutor Emmanuel Y. Velasco. The complaint alleged three acts: first, that Velasco gave unwarranted benefit to an accused in a smuggling case by failing to present a material witness, a gemmologist; second, that he engaged in unauthorized private practice by filing petitions to reopen child abuse cases against the petitioner; and third, that he falsified a public document by making it appear a clarificatory hearing was held in the child abuse preliminary investigation when the witness was allegedly ill and the resolution had already been prepared days earlier.
The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint in a Joint Order, finding no cause to conduct a preliminary investigation. It ruled the petitioner lacked personal interest in the smuggling case charge. On the private practice charge, it found the single act of filing a petition did not constitute “engagement” in private practice. Regarding falsification, it held the discrepancy between the resolution date and the hearing date did not conclusively prove the hearing did not occur, noting the resolution could have been prepared beforehand. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman’s dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint against respondent Velasco.

RULING

No, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized that certiorari lies only when there is a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The Ombudsman is vested with broad investigatory and prosecutorial discretion to determine whether a criminal case should be filed. The Court found the Ombudsman’s evaluation and conclusions were based on the evidence and were not arrived at arbitrarily. Its finding that a single act of filing a pleading does not constitute “engagement” in the private practice of law is a reasonable interpretation. Similarly, its determination that the date discrepancy on the documents, without more, was insufficient to establish probable cause for falsification was within its evaluative prerogative. The Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman’s findings absent a clear showing of grave abuse, which was not present. The petition was dismissed for failing to substantiate that the Ombudsman’s actions were done in an arbitrary or despotic manner.