Professional Documents
Culture Documents
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
159
160
161
162
that is, whether probable cause actually exists or not, on the basis
of the findings of the latter. Verily, it is discretionary upon the
Ombudsman if he will rely mainly on the findings of fact of the
investigating prosecutor in making a review of the latters report
and recommendation, as the Ombudsman can very well make his
own findings of fact. There is nothing to prevent him from acting
one way or the other, x x x
Same; Same; Office of the Special Prosecutor; In case of
conflict in the conclusions of the Ombudsman and the special
prosecutor, it is selfevident that the formers decision shall prevail
since the Office of the Special Prosecutor is under the supervision
and control of the Ombudsman.In case of conflict in the
conclusions of the Ombudsman and the special prosecutor, it is
selfevident that the formers decision shall prevail since the
Office of the Special Prosecutor is under the supervision and
control of the Ombudsman. The action of the respondent
Ombudsman in disapproving the findings of Special Prosecutor
De Guzman and approving that of Legal Counsel Clemente does
not per se constitute grave abuse of discretion.
Same; In the absence of grave abuse of discretion, the Supreme
Court will not interfere with the exercise by the Ombudsman of his
constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutory power.
Petitioners Daan and Tolibas also claim that their evidence
consisting of the affidavit of Pague will show that there is no
probable cause to indict them. The contention lacks merit. We
reiterate the rule of long standing that in the absence of grave
abuse of discretion, this Court will not interfere with the exercise
by the Ombudsman of his constitutionally mandated investigatory
and prosecutory powers. His findings of probable cause are
entitled to great respect.
PUNO, J.:
163
_______________
164
_______________
165
166
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Kuizon vs. Desierto
_______________
13 Resolution dated June 20, 1997, pp. 56; Rollo, pp. 7374.
14 Which were raffled to the Fourth Division.
15 Petition, p. 10; Rollo, p. 13.
16 Annex H, id.; id., pp. 7678.
17 Annex J, id.; id., pp. 8284.
18 Annex I, id.; id., pp. 7981.
19 Annex K, id.; id., pp. 8586.
20 Annex L, id.; id., p. 87.
21 Annex L1, id.; id., p. 88.
22 Annex L3, id.; id., p. 90.
167
VOL. 354, MARCH 9, 2001 167
Kuizon vs. Desierto
Joselito Rainero (sic) K (sic) Daan, the lone respondent who filed
his counteraffidavit, claimed that Danilo S. Cortez and Andres S.
Pague, personally signed the payrolls. If these were true, then
Messrs. Cortez and Pague must have worked during those times
indicated in the payrolls when their names appeared. But
according to them they worked only for less than one month, and
this allegation was not controverted by the respondentseven by
the answering respondent. How could they have claimed their
salaries without working for these?
The claim of respondent Daan is even belied by the copies of
the payrolls attached to the complaint. A scrutiny between the
signatures of Danilo S. Cortez and Andres S. Pague in their
affidavits and those in the
_______________
_______________
32 Resolution dated July 28, 1997, pp. 23; Rollo, pp. 112113.
33 Annexes O and P of the Petition; id., pp. 115118.
34 Which were raffled to the Third Division.
35 Annexes Q and R of the Petition; Rollo, pp. 120129.
169
with the four (4) other cases which was granted36 by the
Sandiganbayan (Third Division) in its Order dated
October 30, 1997. 37
In an Order dated November 24, 1997, the
Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division) granted the two (2)
Motions for Reinvestigation filed by the petitioners. On
June 10, 1999, Special Prosecution
38
Officer II Lemuel M. De
Guzman filed a Manifestation with the Sandiganbayan
which reads as follows:
_______________
170
_______________
171
_______________
172
_______________
173
1999 which is more than sixty (60) days from the time
petitioners were notified of the adverse resolutions issued
by the Office of the Ombudsman. The erroneous filing of
the petition with the Court of Appeals did not toll the
running of the period.
But even on its merit, the petition cannot succeed.
Petitioners primarily invoke denial of due process. They
contend that they were not accorded the opportunity to file
a Motion for Reconsideration since they were not furnished
copies of the adverse Resolutions issued by the OMB
Visayas prior to their approval by the respondent
Ombudsman Desierto. The Office of the Ombudsman
allegedly railroaded the preliminary investigation of the
cases in violation of Sections 6 and 7 of Administrative
Order No. 07, as amended by Administratiye Order No. 09
which provides that:
_______________
174
_______________
175
_______________
176
_______________
177
_______________
67 Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals, 277 SCRA 518 (1997); Pecho vs.
Sandiganbayan, supra citing Zacarias vs. Cruz, 30 SCRA 728 (1969);
People vs. Baluran, 32 SCRA 71 (1970); People vs. Umbrero, 196 SCRA
821 (1991).
68 People vs. Narca, 275 SCRA 696 (1997); Socrates vs. Sandiganbayan,
253 SCRA 773 (1996).
69 Petition, p. 20; Rollo, p. 23.
70 233 SCRA 439 (1994).
71 Id., pp. 450451.
178
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Kuizon vs. Desierto
The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and
prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of
the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the
functions of the courts will be grievously hampered by
innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory
proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with
regard to complaints filed before it, in much the same way that
the courts would be extremely swamped if they could be
compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the
fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an
information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private
75
complainant.
_______________
179