Case Digest (G.R. No. L-8922-24) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Carmelo F. Lazatin, et al. v. Hon. Aniano A. Desierto as Ombudsman, and Sandiganbayan, Third Division, G.R. No. 147097 (June 5, 2009), petitioners Carmelo F. Lazatin, Marino A. Morales, Teodoro L. David and Angelito A. Pelayo sought certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to annul the Ombudsman’s disapproval of the Office of the Special Prosecutor’s (OSP) Resolution dated September 18, 2000, which had recommended the dismissal of criminal charges against them. On July 22, 1998, the Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman lodged Complaint-Affidavit OMB-O-98-1500, accusing petitioners of Illegal Use of Public Funds (Art. 220, RPC) and violations of Sec. 3(a) and (e) of R.A. 3019 for alleged irregularities in the utilization of Congressman Lazatin’s 1996 Countrywide Development Fund. Following a preliminary investigation, the Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau endorsed on May 29, 2000, fourteen counts each of Malversation and graft Case Digest (G.R. No. L-8922-24) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Filing and Preliminary Investigation
- On July 22, 1998, the Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman filed a Complaint-Affidavit (OMB-0-98-1500) against petitioners Lazatin, Morales, David and Pelayo, charging:
- Illegal Use of Public Funds under Article 220, Revised Penal Code.
- Violation of Section 3(a) and (e), Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
- The complaint alleged that Congressman Carmelo F. Lazatin:
- Acted as both proponent and implementer of 1996 Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) projects.
- Signed disbursement vouchers as Disbursing Officer and received 18 checks totaling ₱4,868,277.08, thus converting CDF into cash with assistance of the co-petitioners.
- Resolutions, Filings and Ombudsman Review
- On May 29, 2000, the Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau (EPIB) recommended filing 14 counts each of malversation and RA 3019 §3(e); approved by the Ombudsman; 28 informations (Crim. Cases 26087–26114) were filed in the Sandiganbayan.
- The Sandiganbayan (Third Division) granted petitioners’ Motions for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation and ordered re-evaluation of the cases.
- The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) on September 18, 2000 issued a Resolution recommending dismissal for lack/insufficiency of evidence.
- The Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) in a Memorandum dated October 24, 2000 recommended disapproval of the OSP Resolution and directed aggressive prosecution.
- On October 27, 2000, the Ombudsman adopted the OLA recommendation, disapproved the OSP Resolution, and remanded the cases to the Sandiganbayan.
- Petitioners thereupon filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 seeking reversal of the Ombudsman’s disapproval.
- Petitioners’ Contentions
- The Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion or without/excess of jurisdiction in overturning the OSP Resolution.
- Under the 1987 Constitution, prosecutorial power belongs exclusively to the OSP; the Ombudsman cannot prosecute or control the OSP.
- Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) is unconstitutional for vesting prosecutorial powers in the Ombudsman and making the OSP an organic component thereof.
- The released checks were mere reimbursements for Lazatin’s personal advances on Pinatubo relief projects.
Issues:
- Did the Ombudsman commit grave abuse of discretion or act without or in excess of jurisdiction by disapproving the OSP’s Resolution dismissing the cases?
- Was the Ombudsman’s disapproval based on misapprehension of facts, speculations, surmises or conjectures?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)