Case Digest (G.R. No. 163178)
Facts:
Hilario P. Soriano v. Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo; Hon. Lourdes S. Padre Juan, Graft Investigation Officer II; and Ramon Garcia, G.R. No. 163178, January 30, 2009, the Supreme Court Third Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Hilario P. Soriano filed an Affidavit‑Complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila (docketed I.S. No. 01F‑22547) against Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas bank examiner Mely Palad, charging falsification of public document and use of falsified document. Assistant City Prosecutor Celedonio P. Balasbas issued a resolution (August 27, 2001) recommending that Palad be charged; First Assistant City Prosecutor Leoncia R. Dimagiba recommended approval but, after a Motion to Re‑open by Palad, recommended reopening the case. City Prosecutor Ramon Garcia approved the reopening.
On August 5, 2002, Garcia indorsed the complete records of I.S. No. 01F‑22547 to Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuno of the DOJ and recommended that the preliminary investigation be transferred to the DOJ to avoid suspicion of partiality because petitioner had filed separate complaints against Garcia and Balasbas with the Ombudsman. Petitioner thereupon filed with the Ombudsman (September 5, 2002) an Affidavit‑Complaint against Garcia for (1) dereliction of duty under Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code and (2) corrupt practice under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, alleging that Garcia’s unilateral referral delayed resolution and was malicious retaliation.
Respondent Ombudsman dismissed petitioner’s complaint by Order dated October 3, 2002 for lack of probable cause, concluding inter alia that an Article 208 prosecution is premature absent prior proof of the primary violator’s guilt and that alleged delay does not constitute the “undue injury” required under Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (relying on jurisprudence including Llorente v. Sandiganbayan). Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by Ombudsman Order dated July 14, 2003.
Petitioner sought relief from the Court by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman in dismissing his complaint. The Solicitor General filed comments and memorandum for the Ombudsman. ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Ombudsman commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s complaint against City Prosecutor Ramon Garcia?
- Was a criminal complaint for dereliction of duty under Article 208 properly sustainable against Garcia for his referral of I.S. No. 01F‑22547 to the DOJ?
- Did Garcia's referral of the case to the DOJ constitute a corrupt practice punishable under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 by causing “undue i...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)