G.R. No. 231490 & G.R. No. 231566, September 15, 2021.
Victor Abadiez Bonghanoy, Isidore Gaviola Besas, and Eustaquio Raña Bacolod, Petitioners, vs. Office of the Ombudsman, Respondent. / Galicano E. Atup, Nelson L. Uy, Efren S. Tanjay, Sabiniano B. Atupan, Merlinda B. Gallego, Rod Arthur P. Cañete, Alan B. Mendez, Letecia Q. Bunado, Constantina B. Villasan, Antonio I. Cutamura, Johnny Jim Q. Garces, and Arme A. Taan, Petitioners, vs. Honorable Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, in her capacity as the Ombudsman of the Office of the Ombudsman, Respondent.

FACTS

On November 6, 2013, the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of Ubay, Bohol passed Resolution No. 205, Series of 2013, requesting the Municipal Mayor to allow the SB to hold 3-win cockfights on February 1 and 2, 2014, at the Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Gymnasium during the town fiesta. The resolution was attested to by Vice Mayor Nelson L. Uy and approved by Mayor Galicano E. Atup. On January 4, 2014, the Sangguniang Barangay of Union, Ubay, Bohol passed Resolution No. 06, Series of 2014, endorsing the SB’s request but proposing the dates January 28, 29, and 30, 2014, at the Barangay Union Gym. This was attested to by Barangay Chairperson Merlinda B. Gallego. On January 8, 2014, the SB passed Resolution No. 08, Series of 2014, amending Resolution No. 205 to change the dates and venue to those requested by the barangay. This was also attested to by Vice Mayor Uy and approved by Mayor Atup. The Bohol Provincial Police Office issued a Special Permit dated January 9, 2014, to hold the three-day special cockfight for the entertainment of tourists and balikbayans during the annual town fiesta. Mayor Atup also issued a special permit subject to conditions. The cockfighting event was held as scheduled.
A complaint was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman against the public officials involved for violating Presidential Decree No. (PD) 449 (Cockfighting Law of 1974), as amended by PD 1602, alleging they authorized the holding of a cockfight in an unlicensed cockpit. The Ombudsman, in a Resolution dated October 11, 2016, found probable cause to indict the petitioners for violation of PD 449, applying Section 5(d) of the law, ruling that the primary purpose was the local town fiesta, requiring the event to be held in a licensed cockpit, which it was not. It dismissed the complaint against one individual for lack of probable cause. The Ombudsman denied the petitioners’ motions for reconsideration in an Order dated January 17, 2017. The petitioners filed consolidated petitions for certiorari under Rule 65, arguing the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining the filing of the Information, but the Ombudsman had already filed it with the Sandiganbayan prior to the TRO.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding probable cause to indict the petitioners for violation of PD 449, as amended.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petitions. It ruled that the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause. The Court held that the applicable law was Section 5(e) of PD 449, not Section 5(d). Section 5(e) allows the holding of cockfights for the entertainment of foreign dignitaries, tourists, and/or balikbayans, and such events may be held in a place other than a licensed cockpit upon a permit from the Chief Constabulary (now Chief of the Philippine National Police). The Court found that the cockfighting event was primarily intended to entertain balikbayans and tourists, as stated in the SB Resolution and as supported by the Special Permit issued by the Philippine National Police. The Ombudsman’s conclusion that the town fiesta was the primary purpose was a misappreciation of evidence. Since all requirements under Section 5(e) were complied with—including the permit from the PNP—the holding of the cockfight was legal. Consequently, there was no probable cause to indict the petitioners for violation of PD 449. The Court made the TRO permanent and set aside the Ombudsman’s Resolution and Order.