Case Digest (G.R. No. 158189)
Facts:
Roberto B. Kalalo, an employee and then Board Secretary of Pablo Borbon Memorial Institute of Technology (PBMIT), now Batangas State University, filed a Complaint Affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman alleging falsification of public documents and violations of Sections 3(a) and 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 arising from the 129th General Meeting of the PBMIT Board of Trustees held on January 21, 1997. In March 2001 petitioner claimed that respondent Marcelo L. Agustin, acting on the order of respondent Ernesto M. De Chavez, forwarded to petitioner a final print of the Minutes for certification which, when compared to the petitioner’s original, showed alleged intercalations consisting of Resolution Nos. 6, 25 and 26; petitioner asserted that the authentic minutes had eight pages while the copy he received had nine pages and that his signature was placed inadvertently or was forged because De Chavez had signed the minutes before petitioner attested to them. Petitioner refuse...Case Digest (G.R. No. 158189)
Facts:
Roberto B. Kalalo, a Board Secretary and employee of Pablo Borbon Memorial Institute of Technology, filed a Complaint Affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman accusing school officials, including Ernesto M. De Chavez and Marcelo L. Agustin, of falsifying the minutes of the 129th Board meeting (January 21, 1997) and violating Sections 3(a) and 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 by allegedly inserting Resolution Nos. 6, 25 and 26 and presenting a signed minute he refused to certify.The Deputy Ombudsman dismissed the complaint in a Resolution dated May 14, 2002 and denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration in an Order dated October 8, 2002; petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Did the Office of the Ombudsman gravely abuse its discretion by misappreciating the facts and issues of the complaint?
- Did the Ombudsman gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the assailed Resolution and Order without factual or legal bases?
- Did the Ombudsman err in finding no probable cause to charge the respondents?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)