GR 197613; (November, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 197613 November 22, 2017
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Petitioner vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and ATTY. TERENCIA S. ERNIRIVERA, Respondents
FACTS
The Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) filed criminal complaints against its employee, Atty. Terencia S. Ernirivera, before the Office of the Ombudsman. The first set of allegations stemmed from a 2004 complaint by Hazel Magabo, who claimed Atty. Rivera, while a Public Attorney V, agreed to handle her brother’s annulment case for a fee of ₱93,000.00 but failed to file any petition. Atty. Rivera defended herself by stating the money was merely entrusted to her to secure a private lawyer for the case and was fully returned. The Department of Justice (DOJ) later found her administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Separately, PAO accused Atty. Rivera of falsification under the Revised Penal Code. This arose from a December 2006 Certificate of Service she submitted, certifying she reported for work for the entire month of November 2006. A subsequent certification from a District Public Attorney, however, stated she only reported from November 13 to 24. Atty. Rivera explained her certificate was accurate as it accounted for official leaves, holidays, and an authorized convention, and that the district office certification merely confirmed her physical presence there for a specific period.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaints for violation of RA 6713, RA 3019, and Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code for lack of probable cause.
RULING
No, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized that certiorari lies only when the Ombudsman’s action is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, meaning a capricious, whimsical, or despotic exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The Court found no such abuse in the Ombudsman’s finding of no probable cause. For the charges under RA 6713 (private practice) and RA 3019 (causing undue injury/giving unwarranted benefit), the Ombudsman rationally relied on the complainant’s Affidavit of Desistance and the lack of conclusive evidence that Atty. Rivera engaged in private law practice, as the money received was claimed to be a trust deposit later returned.
Regarding falsification, the Ombudsman correctly found no probable cause for making untruthful statements. Atty. Rivera’s detailed explanation showed her Certificate of Service for November 2006 was not a false narration of facts; it truthfully accounted for her official time including leaves, holidays, and an authorized convention. The subsequent certification from the district office did not contradict but merely specified her location during a subset of that period. The Ombudsman’s determination that the element of falsity was absent was a reasonable assessment of the evidence, not an arbitrary one. The Court upheld the Ombudsman’s constitutional independence and discretion in prosecutorial matters, finding its resolutions were based on the evidence and not arrived at arbitrarily.