Case Digest (G.R. No. 208086)
Facts:
Florencio Morales, Jr. v. Ombudsman Conchita Carpio‑Morales, Atty. Agnes VST Devanadera, Atty. Miguel Noel T. Ocampo, Atty. Joyce Martinez‑Barut, Atty. Allan S. Hilbero, and Atty. Edizer J. Resurreccion, G.R. No. 208086, July 27, 2016, the Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.On 16 June 2007, Atty. Demetrio L. Hilbero was shot dead in Calamba City, Laguna. The Philippine National Police investigation reported two motorcycle-riding assailants and concluded the killing was likely a case of mistaken identity; it also recorded that on 26 December 2007 Atty. Allan S. Hilbero executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay identifying Florencio Morales, Jr. (petitioner), Sandy Pamplona, and others as suspects. The PNP Criminal Investigation and Detection Group recommended murder charges against petitioner, Sandy Pamplona, Lorenzo Pamplona, and Primo Lopez.
An undated memorandum shows Atty. Miguel Noel T. Ocampo voluntarily inhibited himself from the case. On 10 January 2008 Regional State Prosecutor Ernesto C. Mendoza designated Asst. Regional State Prosecutor Dominador A. Leyros to investigate I.S. No. 1428‑07. After preliminary investigation, the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor issued a 6 May 2008 resolution finding probable cause only against Lorenzo Pamplona and Primo Lopez and dismissing charges against petitioner and Sandy Pamplona.
Atty. Allan S. Hilbero appealed to the Department of Justice. In Resolution No. 212 (18 March 2009) the DOJ dismissed the appeal and absolved the four accused, but in a Resolution dated 30 September 2009 then‑Secretary of Justice Agnes VST Devanadera granted reconsideration and directed the regional prosecutors to file or amend informations to include Sandy Pamplona and petitioner as co‑accused. Petitioner sought relief in the Court of Appeals by certiorari (CA‑G.R. SP No. 111191); in a decision dated 7 June 2011 the CA modified the DOJ resolution by dropping the charge against petitioner. The RTC thereafter complied and dropped petitioner from Criminal Case No. 15782‑08‑C (Resolution dated 17 October 2011).
On 19 December 2011 petitioner filed a Complaint‑Affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman (CPL‑C‑11‑2601) charging Sec. Devanadera, Atty. Ocampo, and assistant prosecutors Joyce Martinez‑Barut, Allan S. Hilbero and Edizer J. Resurrecion with grave abuse of authority, grave misconduct, falsification of public documents, and violations of the Anti‑Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Code of Professional Conduct, and the Revised Penal Code.
The Ombudsman issued an Order dated 13 January 2012 dismissing the complaint for lack of palpable merit and dispensing with further investigation. In a Review Order dated 25 October 2012 the Ombudsman noted that the administrative complaint against Sec. Devanadera was filed after she had left service and invoked paragraphs (1) and (2), Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) — namely, dismissal where the complainant has an adequate remedy elsewhere or the matter is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction — observing that petitioner had already availed of judicial remedy in the CA. A motion for reconsideration of the Review Order was denied in an Order dated 15 April 2013.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio‑Morales in issuing the three assailed orders. He contended there was clear and convincing evidence that respondent prosecutors and others falsified and altered the Information and Amended Information, conspired to deprive him of due process, and that the Ombudsman should have conducted a preliminary investigation against both public and private respondents. Respondent prosecutors and the Ombudsman answered, urging dismiss...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Office of the Ombudsman commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s administrative and criminal‑related complaint against the respondent prosecutors and Sec. De...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)