lalnLlffs: Carmelo l. LazaLln, Marlno A. Morales, 1eodoro L. uavld and AngellLo A. elayo
uefendanL: Pon. Anlano A. ueslerLo as Cmbudsman, and Sandlganbayan, 1hlrd ulvlslon
CASL: eLlLloners were accused of vlolaLlon of Art|c|e 220 of the kC and k.A. No. 3019. AfLer a premlllnary lnvesLlgaLlon, lL was recommended LhaL Lhey be prosecuLed. 1he Sandlganbayan, however, ordered a re-evaluaLlon of Lhe case. SubsequenLly Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Speclal rosecuLor (whlch ls under Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman by vlrLue of k.A. No. 6770) recommended LhaL Lhe case be dlsmlssed. 1he Cfflce of Legal Affalrs on Lhe oLher hand recommended Lhe prosecuLlon. 1he Cmbudsman adopLed Lhe CLA recommendaLlon, whlch Lhe peLlLloners asserL ls beyond hls [urlsdlcLlon because Lhe ConsLlLuLlon meanL for Lhe CS Lo be lndependenL from Lhe Cmbudsman, and Lherefore Lhe Cbudsman has no power Lo prosecuLe.
1he Supreme CourL ruled LhaL Lhe ConsLlLuLlon allows Lhe LeglslaLlve Lo granL Lhe Cmbudsman addlLlonal powers, lncludlng Lhe power Lo lnvesLlgaLe - whlch was done Lhrough k.A. No. 6770. 1hus, Lhe Cmbudsman was acLlng wlLhln lLs powers Lo prosecuLe peLlLloners. Also, peLlLloners cannoL quesLlon Lhe evaluaLlon of evldence made by Cmbudsman ln Lhe Supreme CourL because CerLlorarl wlll noL be lssued Lo cure errors of Lhe Lrlal courL ln lLs appreclaLlon of Lhe evldence of Lhe parLles, or lLs concluslons anchored on Lhe sald flndlngs and lLs concluslons of law. eLlLloners falled Lo prove LhaL Lhe Cmbudsman acLed wlLh grave abuse of dlscreLlon.
uCC18lnL/ALlCA1lCn: 1he Cmbudsman has been granLed by LeglslaLure Lhe power Lo prosecuLe, ln llne wlLh Lhe ConsLlLuLlon. !"#$%&#'#% ls a remedy meanL Lo correcL only errors of [urlsdlcLlon, noL errors of [udgmenL.
8ACkGkCUND: ! !uly 22, 1998 ! Lhe lacL-llndlng and lnLelllgence 8ureau of Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman flled a ComplalnL AffldavlL charLlng peLlLloners wlLh lllegal use of llegal use of ubllc lunds as deflned and penallzed under Art|c|e 220 of the kev|sed ena| Code and vlolaLlon of Sect|on 3, paragraphs (a) and (e) of kepub||c Act No. 3019 (Ant|-Graft and Corrupt ract|ces Act), as amended. ! 1he complalnL alleged Lhere were lrregularlLles ln Lhe use of LhaL Lhen Congressman Carmelo l. LazaLln of hls CounLrywlde uevelopmenL lund (Cul) for 1996. WlLh Lhe help of hls co- peLlLloners, LazaLln was able Lo clalm 18 checks amounLlng Lo 4,868,277.08 and converL Lhem lnLo cash. ! May 29, 2000 ! 1he LvaluaLlon and rellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon 8ureau (Ll8) lssued a 8esoluLlon (and evenLually approved by Lhe Cmbudsman) recommendlng Lhe flllng of 14 counLs each of malversaLlon agalnsL peLlLloners ln Lhe Sandlganbayan. o 1he Sandlganbayan ordered re-evaluaLlon of Lhe case. ! SepLember 18, 2000 ! 1he Cfflce of Speclal rosecuLor (CS) 8esoluLlon recommended Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe case for lack or lnsufflclency of evldence. ! CcLober 24, 2000 ! 1he Cfflce of Legal Affalrs (CLA) lssued a memorandum afLer belng ordered by Lhe Cmbudsman Lo revlew Lhe CS resoluLlon. 1he CLA memorandum recommended Lhe CS resoluLlon be dlsapproved Lhe CS be dlrecLed Lo proceed wlLh Lhe Lrlal of Lhe case. ! CcLober 27, 2000 ! 1he Cmbudsman adopLed Lhe CLA Memorandum, and Lhe cases reLurned Lo Lhe Sandlganbayan.
"&!=+''+ &%%+ .-0#+""+> ISSULS 1C 8L kLSCLVLD: 1. WheLher or noL Lhe Cmbudsman acLed wlLh grave abuse of dlscreLlon or acLed wlLhouL or ln excess of hls [urlsdlcLlon. 2. WheLher or noL Lhe quesLloned resoluLlon was based on mlsapprehenslon of facLs, speculaLlons, surmlses and con[ecLures
kLSCLU1ICNS AND AkGUMLN1S ISSUL 1 ! WheLher or noL Lhe Cmbudsman acLed wlLh grave abuse of dlscreLlon or acLed wlLhouL or ln excess of hls [urlsdlcLlon ! nC. 1he CS has been placed under Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman by vlrLue of k.A. No. 6770 (Cmbudsman Act of 1989), and as such ls under Lhe supervlslon and conLrol of Lhe Cmbudsman.
Ma[or olnL 1: 1he ConsLlLuLlon does noL proscrlbe Lhe LeglslaLure from granLlng Lhe Cmbudsman more powers, nor from placlng Lhe CS under Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman. eLlLloners asserL LhaL Lhe Cmbudsman has no auLhorlLy Lo overLurn Lhe CS's resoluLlon dlsmlsslng Lhe cases agalnsL peLlLloners because Lhe ConsLlLuLlon granLs Lhe Cmbudsman only wlLh Lhe power Lo waLch, lnvesLlgaLe and recommend Lhe flllng of proper cases agalnsL errlng offlclals, buL lL was noL granLed Lhe power Lo prosecuLe. Acop v. Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman o 1he CourL held LhaL glvlng prosecuLorlal powers Lo Lhe Cmbudsman ls ln accordance wlLh Lhe Const|tut|on as paragraph 8, Sect|on 13, Art|c|e kI provldes LhaL Lhe Cmbudsman shall exerclse such oLher funcLlons or duLles as may be provlded by law." o Congress has Lhe power Lo place Lhe CS under Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman. ln Lhe same veln, Congress may remove some of Lhe powers granLed Lo Lhe 1anodbayan by .D. No. 1630 and Lransfer Lhem Lo Lhe Cmbudsman, or granL Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Speclal rosecuLor such oLher powers and funcLlons and duLles as Congress may deem flL and wlse.
Ma[or olnL 2: k.A. No. 6770 ls consLlLuLlonal. 1he prlnclple of ($'#" *"+%(%( cannoL be seL aslde. eLlLloners malnLaln LhaL k.A. No. 6770 (1he Cmbudsman Act of 1989), whlch made Lhe CS an organlc componenL of Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman, should be sLruck down for belng unconsLlLuLlonal. 1he docLrlne of sLare declsls eL non quleLa movere (Lo adhere Lo precedenLs and noL Lo unseLLle Lhlngs whlch are esLabllshed) ls embodled ln Art|c|e 8 of the C|v|| Code 1 of Lhe hlllpplnes o lermln v. eople ! 1he docLrlne of sLare declsls ls based on Lhe prlnclple LhaL once a quesLlon of law has been examlned and declded, lL should be deemed seLLled and closed Lo furLher argumenL. o Chlnese ?oung Men's ChrlsLlan AssoclaLlon of Lhe hlllpplne lslands v. 8emlngLon SLeel CorporaLlon ! SLare declsls slmply means LhaL for Lhe sake of cerLalnLy, a concluslon reached ln one case should be applled Lo Lhose LhaL follow lf Lhe facLs are subsLanLlally Lhe same, even Lhough Lhe parLles may be dlfferenL. lL proceeds from Lhe flrsL prlnclple of [usLlce LhaL, absenL any powerful counLervalllng conslderaLlons, llke cases oughL Lo be declded allke. eLlLloners have noL shown any sLrong, compelllng reason Lo convlnce Lhe CourL LhaL Lhe docLrlne of sLare declsls should noL be applled Lo Lhls case. o 1hey have noL successfully demonsLraLed how or why lL would be grave abuse of dlscreLlon for Lhe Cmbudsman, who has been valldly conferred by law wlLh Lhe power of conLrol and supervlslon over Lhe CS, Lo dlsapprove or overLurn any resoluLlon lssued by Lhe laLLer.
ISSUL 2 ! WheLher or noL Lhe quesLloned resoluLlon was based on mlsapprehenslon of facLs, speculaLlons, surmlses and con[ecLures. ! 1he quesLlon ls really wheLher Lhe Cmbudsman correcLly ruled LhaL Lhere was enough evldence Lo supporL a flndlng of probable cause. 1hls CourL cannoL overLurn Lhe Cmbudsman flndlng of probable cause absenL any proof LhaL lL acLed wlLh grave abuse of dlscreLlon.
Ma[or olnL 1: !"#$%&#'#% ls a remedy meanL Lo correcL only errors of [urlsdlcLlon, noL errors of [udgmenL. llrsL CorporaLlon v. lormer SlxLh ulvlslon of Lhe CourL of Appeals ! CerLlorarl proceedlngs do noL lnclude an lnqulry as Lo Lhe correcLness of Lhe evaluaLlon of evldence. An error of [udgment ls one whlch Lhe courL may commlL ln Lhe exerclse of lLs [urlsdlcLlon. An error of [ur|sd|ct|on ls one where Lhe acL complalned of was lssued by Lhe courL wlLhouL or ln excess of [urlsdlcLlon, or wlLh grave abuse of dlscreLlon, whlch ls LanLamounL Lo lack or ln excess of [urlsdlcLlon and whlch error ls correcLlble only by Lhe exLraordlnary wrlL of cerLlorarl. lL ls noL for Lhls CourL Lo re-examlne confllcLlng evldence, re-evaluaLe Lhe credlblllLy of Lhe wlLnesses or subsLlLuLe Lhe flndlngs of facL of Lhe courL a quo.
Ma[or olnL 2: 1he CourL cannoL lnLerfere wlLh Lhe Cmbudsman's exerclse of hls lnvesLlgaLory and prosecuLor powers as long as hls rullng are supporLed by subsLanLlal evldence, and absenL any proof of grave abuse of dlscreLlon resldenLlal Ad Poc lacL- llndlng CommlLLee on 8ehesL Loans v. ueslerLo ! 1he Cmbudsman has wlde laLlLude ln exerclslng hls powers and ls free from lnLervenLlon from Lhe Lhree branches of governmenL. 1hls ls Lo ensure LhaL hls Cfflce ls lnsulaLed from any ouLslde pressure and lmproper lnfluence. resldenLlal Commlsslon on Cood CovernmenL v. ueslerLo ! Crave abuse of dlscreLlon lmplles a caprlclous and whlmslcal exerclse of [udgmenL LanLamounL Lo lack of [urlsdlcLlon. 1he Cmbudsman's exerclse of power musL have been done ln an arblLrary or despoLlc manner whlch musL be so paLenL and gross as Lo amounL Lo an evaslon of a poslLlve duLy or a vlrLual refusal Lo perform Lhe duLy en[olned or Lo acL aL all ln conLemplaLlon of law.
IINAL VLkDIC1: 1he Cmbudsman was acLlng ln accordance wlLh k.A. No. 6770 and properly exerclsed lLs power of conLrol and supervlslon over Lhe CS when lL dlsapproved Lhe 8esoluLlon daLed SepLember 18, 2000.
Republic Act No. 2640 - An Act To Create A Public Corporation To Be Known As The Veterans Federation of The Philippines, Defining Its Powers, and For Other Purposes