Case Digest (G.R. No. 147097)
Facts:
Carmelo F. Lazatin, Marino A. Morales, Teodoro L. David and Angelito A. Pelayo, G.R. No. 147097, June 05, 2009, the Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.On July 22, 1998, the Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman filed a Complaint‑Affidavit docketed OMB‑0‑98‑1500 charging the petitioners with Illegal Use of Public Funds (Art. 220, Revised Penal Code) and violations of Section 3, paragraphs (a) and (e) of R.A. No. 3019. The complaint alleged irregularities in Congressman Carmelo F. Lazatin’s use of his 1996 Countrywide Development Fund (CDF): that he acted as both proponent and implementer, signed disbursement vouchers as Disbursing Officer, and received eighteen checks totaling P4,868,277.08, with the assistance of the co‑petitioners to convert CDF appropriations into cash.
A preliminary investigation by the Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau (EPIB) resulted in a Resolution dated May 29, 2000 recommending the filing of fourteen counts each of malversation and violations of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The Ombudsman approved that Resolution and Informations (Criminal Case Nos. 26087 to 26114) were filed in the Sandiganbayan. The petitioners moved for reconsideration/reinvestigation; the Sandiganbayan (Third Division) granted those motions and ordered the prosecution to re‑evaluate the cases.
Thereafter the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) issued a Resolution dated September 18, 2000 recommending dismissal of the cases for lack or insufficiency of evidence. The Ombudsman directed the Office of the Legal Affairs (OLA) to review the OSP Resolution. In an OLA Memorandum dated October 24, 2000, the OLA recommended disapproval of the OSP Resolution and that prosecution proceed. On October 27, 2000, the Ombudsman adopted the OLA recommendation, disapproved the OSP Resolution, ordered aggressive prosecution, and returned the cases to the Sandiganbayan.
The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 against Hon. Aniano A. Desierto as Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan, Third Division, contending (1) the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion or without/exceeding jurisdiction by overturning the OSP dismissal, and (2) the OSP Resolution was bas...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Ombudsman commit grave abuse of discretion or exceed his jurisdiction when he disapproved the OSP Resolution of September 18, 2000?
- Is R.A. No. 6770 unconstitutional insofar as it grants prosecutorial powers to the Ombudsman and places the OSP under the Office of the Ombudsman?
- Was the Ombudsman’s disapproval of the OSP Resolution based on misapprehension of facts, speculation and conjecture such that certiorari is warrant...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)