Case Digest (G.R. No. 136433)
Facts:
Antonio B. Baltazar v. Honorable Ombudsman, Eulogio M. Mariano, Jose D. Jimenez, Jr., Toribio E. Ilao, Jr. and Ernesto R. Salenga, G.R. No. 136433, December 06, 2006, Supreme Court Third Division, Velasco, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Antonio B. Baltazar filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman (docketed OMB-1-94-3425) accusing Provincial Adjudicator Toribio E. Ilao, Jr., DAR Region III Chief Legal Officer Eulogio M. Mariano, DAR Legal Officer Jose D. Jimenez, Jr., and private party Ernesto R. Salenga of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019 by granting unwarranted benefits to Salenga (including issuance of a TRO and allowing him to retain possession and harvest a fishpond). The Ombudsman ordered respondents to file counter-affidavits; subsequent proceedings produced mixed filings, motions to dismiss by Ilao, and interlocutory events in DARAB Case No. 552-P’93 (Ernesto R. Salenga v. Rafael L. Lopez and Lourdes L. Lapid) concerning possession of a seven-hectare fishpond owned by Paciencia Regala.
Chronologically, the DARAB proceedings began with Salenga’s complaint and ex parte presentation of evidence; respondent Ilao issued a TRO on July 21, 1993 after Salenga’s unopposed hearing, and later dismissed the agrarian complaint on May 29, 1995. While the administrative/agrarian case proceeded, petitioner filed his Ombudsman complaint on November 24, 1994. The Ombudsman found probable cause in a May 10, 1996 Resolution and the Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan on March 17, 1997 (Criminal Case No. 23661).
After filing of the Information, the Sandiganbayan (by Order dated August 29, 1997) granted respondent Ilao’s motion for re‑investigation and ordered the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) to conduct it; Ilao thereafter filed a counter-affidavit. The OSP recommended dismissal in an November 26, 1997 Order, which the Ombudsman approved on August 21, 1998. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by OSP Memorandum of October 30, 1998 (approved November 27, 1998). The Sandiganbayan thereafter granted the prosecution’s or...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does petitioner have locus standi to prosecute this Rule 45 petition in this Court?
- Did the Ombudsman commit grave abuse of discretion by accepting respondent Ilao’s counter‑affidavit after preliminary investigation had concluded and an Information had been filed with the Sandiganbayan?
- Did the Ombudsman err in reversing its earlier finding of probable cause on the ground that respondent Ilao lacked jurisdiction because Salenga was a mere watchman (bante‑...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)