G.R. No. 189161 - Angeles vs. Gutierrez

The case involves a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Court.
Petitioner Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, then Presiding Judge of Branch 121 of the Caloocan City RTC, filed a Complaint against respondent Senior State Prosecutor Emmanuel Y. Velasco.
At the time of the filing, Velasco was serving as a senior state prosecutor at the DOJ.
The Complaint sought to set aside the Joint Order of the Ombudsman dated 21 March 2007 which exonerated Velasco from the criminal charges filed by Judge Angeles.

The Complaint alleges that Velasco, as the trial prosecutor in a jewelry smuggling case, failed to present a gemmologist witness from the Bureau of Customs.
The witness was expected to testify about the substance comprising the smuggled jewelry, a testimony that was allegedly known to Velasco.
The omission was argued to suppress crucial evidence and thus bestow an unwarranted benefit or preference to the accused.

Velasco allegedly filed two separate Petitions to reopen child abuse cases previously filed against petitioner Judge Angeles.
These cases involved allegations of physical and psychological abuse against Maria Mercedes Vistan, the grandniece of the petitioner.
Velasco had earlier conducted a preliminary investigation and indicted the petitioner for 21 counts of child abuse; however, the DOJ later reversed his recommendation, leading to the withdrawal of the Informations.
It is claimed that Velasco’s move to reopen the cases was aimed at vindictiveness because of the petitioner’s subsequent administrative Complaint against him for gross misconduct, incompetence, and manifest bad faith.

The petitioner contended that Velasco falsified a public document by fabricating Minutes of a clarificatory hearing on 22 June 1999 concerning the child abuse Complaint.
It is further alleged that the witness, Leonila Vistan, could not have attended the hearing due to severe illness, and that the hearing date was inconsistent with the Resolution dated 20 June 1999.
The act of rendering the document to give an appearance that the hearing was conducted was charged as a falsification of a public document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.

The Complaint was filed with the Ombudsman, which is vested with plenary investigatory and prosecutorial powers.
In its Joint Order, the Ombudsman dismissed the charges against Velasco after evaluating the evidence and the merits of each allegation.
Specific grounds for dismissal included:

Insufficient personal interest for the petitioner in the smuggling case.
The exercise of prosecutorial discretion was within acceptable limits in not presenting the witness.
The alleged act of private practice (reopening the child abuse cases) was excused on the basis of Velasco’s duty as an investigating prosecutor.
The falsification charge was dismissed due to the lack of supporting evidence and procedural issues concerning its timeliness.

The petitioner subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Joint Order, which was denied by the Ombudsman.
Unable to resolve the issue administratively, the petitioner elevated the matter via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Court.

Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal Complaint against respondent Velasco.

Specifically, did the Ombudsman’s evaluation of the evidence, regarding the three separate charges (suppression of evidence, unauthorized filing amounting to private practice, and falsification of a public document), amount to an abuse within the limits of his discretionary powers?
Whether the dismissal of the charges was justified based on the absence of personal interest of the petitioner and the proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion.