G.R. No. 211751 , May 10, 2021.
MARK E. JALANDONI, PETITIONER, VS. THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, AND THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, THROUGH ITS THIRD DIVISION, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. Nos. 217212-80] MARK E. JALANDONI, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN THROUGH ITS THIRD DIVISION, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. Nos. 244467-535] MARK E. JALANDONI, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN THROUGH ITS THIRD DIVISION, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. Nos. 245546-614] NENNETTE M. DE PADUA, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, THROUGH ITS THIRD DIVISION, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Mark E. Jalandoni, former Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, and Nennette M. De Padua, former Assistant Ombudsman, were charged with falsification of public documents and infidelity in the custody of public documents by way of concealment. The charges stemmed from irregularities discovered after Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez and Jalandoni resigned in 2011. Acting Ombudsman Orlando C. Casimiro ordered an inventory of pending cases and found that 56 cases had been tampered with. The tampered cases were categorized into three groups: Group A (28 cases) had unsigned patches bearing Jalandoni’s name superimposed on Ombudsman Casimiro’s signed name; Group B (15 cases) had unsigned patches bearing Jalandoni’s name on Ombudsman Gutierrez’s signed name; and Group C (13 cases) had unsigned patches bearing Jalandoni’s name and signature on Ombudsman Gutierrez’s signed name. Jalandoni admitted instructing his staff to tamper with the documents but claimed he had authority from Ombudsman Gutierrez via various office orders and memoranda. He argued the tampering was a common practice and did not alter the documents’ meaning. De Padua denied participation or custody over the documents. Ombudsman Casimiro questioned the veracity of the issuances cited by Jalandoni. The Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause to charge Jalandoni and De Padua with 13 counts of falsification (for Group C cases) and 56 counts of infidelity by concealment (for all groups). Informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan. Jalandoni and De Padua filed petitions for certiorari assailing the rulings of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to charge Jalandoni and De Padua with falsification of public documents and infidelity in the custody of public documents by way of concealment.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions. It held that the Office of the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause. The Court reiterated that as a rule, it does not interfere with the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause, as determining probable cause is a factual matter best left to its expertise as an investigatory and prosecutory body. The Ombudsman’s findings were supported by evidence: alterations (superimposed patches) were made on genuine documents (final signed copies), which changed their meaning by making it appear Jalandoni was the approving authority, thereby speaking something false. For infidelity by concealment, the elements were present: Jalandoni and De Padua were public officers; they concealed documents entrusted to them by reason of office (by covering signatures and withholding release); and this caused damage to public interest (loss of trust, delay in case resolution). Jalandoni’s defense of authority was properly evaluated and found insufficient by the Ombudsman. The Court found no arbitrariness or capriciousness in the Ombudsman’s determination.