Facts:

The case involves Remberto C. Kara-an (petitioner) against the Office of the Ombudsman and several individuals associated with the Philippine Amanah Bank, now known as the Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines (respondents). The events leading to this case began on February 14, 1994, when Kara-an wrote to then-Senator Ernesto Maceda, alleging that a group of six members of the Bank's Board of Directors had engaged in criminal acts by approving a loan of P250,000 to Compressed Air Machineries & Equipment Corporation (CAMEC) without valid collateral. He claimed that the Board approved a real estate mortgage on the loan without canceling a prior mortgage and without obtaining the consent of the first mortgagee, actions he argued were grossly disadvantageous to the government and thus punishable under Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019).

Senator Maceda forwarded Kara-an's complaint to Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez for investigation. On March 25, 1994, the ...

Facts:

Nature of the Case:
This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Remberto C. Kara-an (petitioner) seeking to reverse the Ombudsman’s Resolution dated 27 January 1995, which dismissed his complaint for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) against certain officials of the Philippine Amanah Bank (now Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines).

Complaint Details:
On 14 February 1994, petitioner wrote to Senator Ernesto Maceda, alleging that a “clique of six” in the Board of Directors of the Islamic Bank granted a P250,000 loan to Compressed Air Machineries & Equipment Corporation (CAMEC) without valid collateral. Petitioner claimed the approval of the real estate mortgage on CAMEC’s loan was done without canceling a prior subsisting mortgage and without securing the written consent of the first mortgagee, which he argued was grossly disadvantageous to the government.

Response from Respondents:
Respondents, including Roberto F. De Ocampo (former chairman) and incumbent board members, denied any involvement in the CAMEC loan transaction, stating they were not members of the Board of Directors when the loan was approved in 1986.

Ombudsman’s Resolution:
The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, finding that respondents were not yet members of the Board during the CAMEC transaction. The Ombudsman also noted that petitioner, as the Officer-in-Charge of the Islamic Bank’s Makati Branch, was responsible for screening loan applications and could not shift blame to the Board.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Remedy from Ombudsman’s Decision: The proper remedy from the Ombudsman’s Resolution in criminal cases is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. However, the Court treated the petition as one filed under Rule 65.
2. Ombudsman’s Discretion: The Ombudsman has the sole power to investigate and prosecute public officials. The Court reiterated its policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman’s exercise of discretion unless there is grave abuse of discretion.
3. Probable Cause: The Ombudsman’s finding that there was no probable cause against respondents was supported by substantial evidence. Respondents were not involved in the CAMEC loan transaction in 1986, and there was no proof Carpizo participated in any irregularity.
4. Petitioner’s Liability: The Ombudsman found petitioner responsible as the Officer-in-Charge of the Islamic Bank’s Makati Branch at the time of the loan’s release, and he could not delegate this responsibility to higher officials.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court affirmed the Ombudsman’s Resolution and Order, finding no grave abuse of discretion in the dismissal of petitioner’s complaint. The Court emphasized its policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman’s investigatory and prosecutorial powers.