Case Digest (G.R. No. 184130)
Facts:
Sandra M. Cam v. Orlando C. Casimiro, in His Capacity as Acting Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 184130, June 29, 2015, Supreme Court First Division, Sereno, C.J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Sandra M. Cam filed a Complaint‑Affidavit on 28 June 2005 accusing private respondents Ignacio “Iggy” Arroyo, Juan Miguel “Mikey” Arroyo and Restituto Mosqueda of being “protectors or cuddlers” (i.e., receivers of benefits) in the operation of the illegal numbers game jueteng under Section 2(k) of Republic Act No. 9287. Petitioner alleged she acted as a depository of jueteng payola for Mosqueda and that she personally delivered cash envelopes to Iggy and Mikey Arroyo and facilitated the purchase/delivery of vehicles to Mosqueda.
Respondent Mosqueda and respondent Iggy Arroyo submitted counter‑affidavits (Mosqueda on 30 August 2005; Iggy on 27 September 2005) and other supporting documents denying petitioner’s version; Mikey Arroyo did not file a counter‑affidavit but later filed a criminal libel case against petitioner. Petitioner filed replies and a rejoinder; Mosqueda produced affidavits (including Col. Gumban) and a hotel certification and a Certificate of Appearance asserting alibis. Petitioner asserted repeated cash deposits into her bank accounts and weekly withdrawals turned over to Mosqueda, deliveries of P400,000 and P500,000 to Iggy and Mikey respectively, and that Mosqueda received an Isuzu D‑Max and a Toyota Revo from jueteng proceeds; the records before the Ombudsman, however, contained only vehicle sales documents and receipts relating to a Revo in the name of Marilyn (Marilyn/Marlyn) Mosqueda.
The Office of the Ombudsman conducted a preliminary investigation in OMB‑C‑C‑05‑0380‑H and, on 9 October 2006, dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence, finding petitioner’s allegations uncorroborated and contradicted by sworn statements of other persons; it relied on People v. Ymana and Gil v. People and observed that the receipts for the Revo did not prove the source of funds. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the Ombudsman in an Order dated 13 February 2008.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court in the Supreme Court s...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Office of the Ombudsman commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing petitioner’s complaint for insufficiency of evidence and in denying her motion for reco...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)