G.R. No. 208086, July 27, 2016
Florencio Morales, Jr., Petitioner, vs. Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from the murder of Atty. Demetrio Hilbero in 2007. After a preliminary investigation, the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor initially found probable cause only against Lorenzo Pamplona and Primo Lopez, dismissing charges against petitioner Florencio Morales, Jr. and Sandy Pamplona. The victim’s son, Atty. Allan Hilbero, appealed to the Department of Justice (DOJ). In a 2009 Resolution, then DOJ Secretary Agnes Devanadera reversed the earlier finding and ordered the prosecution of all four accused, including Morales. Morales successfully challenged this DOJ Resolution via a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which ruled that Secretary Devanadera committed grave abuse of discretion and ordered Morales’s name dropped from the criminal information.
Subsequently, Morales filed a complaint-affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman against Secretary Devanadera and several prosecutors, alleging Grave Abuse of Authority, Grave Misconduct, Falsification, and violations of anti-graft laws. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint in three separate orders. The dismissal was based on several grounds: the complaint against Sec. Devanadera was filed after she had left government service; Morales had already availed of an adequate judicial remedy through his successful CA petition; and the correctness of a prosecutor’s filing of an information is a matter for the trial court, not the Ombudsman, to adjudicate.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing petitioner’s complaint-affidavit against the respondent public officials.

RULING

No, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the Ombudsman’s dismissal orders. The legal logic rests on established doctrines concerning the Ombudsman’s discretionary power and the specific circumstances of the case. First, the Court upheld the Ombudsman’s finding that it could no longer pursue an administrative case against former Secretary Devanadera, as she was no longer in government service when the complaint was filed. Jurisprudence consistently holds that the Ombudsman loses jurisdiction over a public official’s administrative liability once that official has separated from office.
Second, the Court agreed that the petitioner had an adequate remedy in another judicial body, which he had already successfully utilized. By filing and winning a petition for certiorari with the CA, which found grave abuse of discretion in the DOJ resolution, Morales obtained the precise relief he sought—his exclusion from the criminal case. The Ombudsman correctly invoked Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act), which allows it to decline investigation where the complainant has an adequate remedy elsewhere. Third, the Court emphasized that the Ombudsman’s power to investigate is discretionary. Absent a clear showing of arbitrariness, its findings on whether to proceed with an investigation are generally beyond judicial review. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the dismissal was done whimsically or capriciously. The Ombudsman’s orders were based on legal grounds and prior judicial proceedings, not on grave abuse of discretion.