G.R. No. 257516, May 13, 2024
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-REVENUE INTEGRITY PROTECTION SERVICE (DOF-RIPS), PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, FREDERICK S. LEAÑO, AND JEREMIAS C. LEAÑO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) filed a criminal complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) against Spouses Frederick and Jeremias Leaño, both Bureau of Customs employees. The complaint alleged they made untruthful declarations in their joint Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) from 2006 to 2018. Specifically, DOF-RIPS alleged: (1) a false declaration of a house and lot in Montefaro Village, Imus City, Cavite, with inconsistent reported acquisition costs; (2) failure to declare a house and lot in Golden Villas Subdivision, Imus City, Cavite, from 2009 to 2018; and (3) failure to declare a business interest in Framille General Merchandise in their 2012 SALN. Verification showed no properties registered in the spouses’ names, but tax payments listed them as owners of the Golden Villas property. DTI documents indicated their ownership of Framille.
In defense, the Spouses Leaño explained that the Montefaro property was purchased by Jeremias’s sister, Josielyn Cari, via a Pag-IBIG loan, but Jeremias took over payments when she could not continue, leading them to reside there. The Golden Villas property was purchased by Josielyn but the loan was secured by Jeremias in her name due to her inability to obtain another loan. They claimed an implied trust arrangement and intended to transfer titles after full loan payment. The discrepancy in acquisition costs was due to confusion over the property swap with Josielyn. Regarding Framille, they claimed the business was registered but never operational.
The OMB dismissed the complaints in a Joint Resolution, finding the siblings’ arrangement typical and crediting the explanation that the inconsistencies stemmed from honest confusion, not criminal intent. It also found that DTI registration alone did not prove actual business operation. The OMB denied DOF-RIPS’s motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the criminal complaints against the Spouses Leaño.

RULING

No, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari. The Court generally does not interfere with the OMB’s exercise of its investigative and prosecutorial powers, respecting its independence and recognizing that probable cause determination is a highly factual inquiry. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary exercise of judgment tantamount to a virtual refusal to perform a duty under the law. Mere disagreement with the OMB’s findings is insufficient.
The OMB’s findings were based on its assessment of the evidence, including the credible explanation of an implied trust arrangement between Jeremias and his sister regarding the properties, supported by their occupancy. The discrepancies in the SALN entries were attributed to honest confusion over how to report the properties subject to the swap arrangement, not a calculated intent to falsify or conceal. Regarding the business interest, the OMB correctly held that registration does not equate to actual operation requiring disclosure. The OMB’s conclusion that the alleged inconsistencies were minor errors not intended to conceal illicit activities and did not meet the threshold for criminal liability for falsification, perjury, or violations of RA 3019 and RA 6713 was not arbitrary or despotic. Thus, the OMB acted within its discretion, and no grave abuse was established.