G.R. No. 196842 - Busuego vs. Office of the Ombudsman

Case Summary (G.R. No. 196842)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner seeks certiorari relief from Ombudsman resolutions that directed the filing of an Information for concubinage under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code against him and Emy Sia. Private respondent filed the underlying complaint alleging concubinage, violations of RA 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children), and grave threats.

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

Marriage: 12 July 1975.
Rosa’s planned departure to the U.S.: March 1985; she left after an incident involving a gun.
Allegations of Sia’s residence in conjugal home: discovered circa 1997.
Allegations of de Leon staying in conjugal bedroom: dates alleged 23, 24, 30 and 31 December 2004.
Ombudsman Joint Order impleading Sia and de Leon: 24 June 2008.
Ombudsman Resolution finding probable cause and ordering Information filed: 17 April 2009.
Ombudsman Order denying motion for reconsideration: October 2010.
Supreme Court disposition: petition dismissed and Ombudsman decisions affirmed.

Applicable Law and Legal Framework

Constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable given the decision date).
Relevant statutes and rules: Article 334 (concubinage) and Article 344 (prosecution requirements) of the Revised Penal Code; RA 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children); Ombudsman Rules of Procedure (Rule II); OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001 (guidelines on handling complaints against public officers and coordination between Ombudsman and DOJ); Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (Rule 112) and Rules of Court provisions on amendment (Rule 110, Section 14). Jurisprudence cited in the resolution (e.g., Honasan II, Kalalo, Asetre, Casing, Bugayong, People v. Francisco, Firaza).

Factual Background Relevant to the Offense Allegations

The marriage produced two sons (1976 and 1978). Marital relations deteriorated beginning in 1983 with Rosa discovering love letters and photographs indicating alleged infidelities. After an incident in which Alfredo allegedly threatened Rosa with a firearm, Rosa left for the U.S. in 1985; her children later joined her and were largely raised by her. Rosa alleged that Alfredo did not send financial support and continued extramarital relationships. In 1997 she learned that Emy Sia was living in the conjugal home; later, Robert and household helpers reported that Sia slept in the conjugal bedroom and called Alfredo “Papa.” Robert also reported Alfredo’s later affair with Julie de Leon and produced evidence of de Leon staying overnight in the conjugal bedroom on specific December 2004 dates. Rosa alleged also instances of physical and verbal abuse and threats.

Initiation of Proceedings Before the Ombudsman

Rosa filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman alleging concubinage (Art. 334 RPC), violation of RA 9262, and grave threats (Art. 282 RPC). The Ombudsman referred the complaint to Alfredo for comment and, because Alfredo raised the procedural problem of non-impleading the alleged concubines (Article 344, Rule 110 Section 5), the Ombudsman conducted a clarificatory hearing and directed Rosa to provide addresses of the alleged mistresses so they could be impleaded and given opportunity to file counter-affidavits.

Service, Failure to File Counter-Affidavits, and Ombudsman Joint Order

On 24 June 2008 the Ombudsman issued a Joint Order impleading Sia and de Leon as respondents and directing them to submit counter-affidavits. Copies were mailed to their last known addresses provided by Rosa; de Leon’s copy was received by Ananias de Leon, while the copy to Sia was returned “removed.” Neither Sia nor de Leon filed counter-affidavits.

Ombudsman Resolution and Disposition of Counts

The Ombudsman, after evaluating the evidence and procedural issues, found probable cause to indict Alfredo and Sia for concubinage under Article 334 and directed the filing of an Information in the appropriate court. The Ombudsman dismissed the remaining charges (concubinage against de Leon, grave threats, and RA 9262 violations) for lack of merit. A subsequent motion for partial reconsideration by Alfredo was denied by the Ombudsman as untimely.

Grounds of Certiorari and Arguments Brought to the Supreme Court

Alfredo argued that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion by: (1) unlawfully impleading Sia and de Leon over his objections and thereby “railroading” their inclusion in the complaint in violation of Article 344 and Rule 110; (2) failing to refer the complaint to the Department of Justice because the alleged offenses were not in relation to his office; (3) disregarding alleged condonation by Rosa of his womanizing; (4) ignoring the recantation affidavit of household helper Liza Diambangan; and (5) finding probable cause to indict him and Sia for concubinage despite insufficient basis.

Standard of Review Applied by the Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that the Ombudsman has broad discretionary authority to determine probable cause during preliminary investigations. Judicial review of Ombudsman resolutions is limited to determining whether there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion requires capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment so gross as to amount to evasion of a positive duty or arbitrary conduct; courts will not substitute their judgment for that of the Ombudsman on factual determinations absent such grave abuse.

Analysis: Impleading of Alleged Concubines and Procedural Compliance

The Court found no grave abuse in the Ombudsman’s procedure. The Ombudsman acted pursuant to its Rules of Procedure (Rule II) by conducting clarificatory hearings, directing service, and facilitating amendment to cure the procedural defect (failure to implead). The Court observed that dismissal for a curable procedural defect would be superfluous because the complaint could be amended and refiled and res judicata does not apply at the preliminary investigation stage. The Rules of Court permitting amendment (Rule 110, Section 14) and the Ombudsman’s procedural rules supported the Ombudsman’s approach of impleading the alleged mistresses rather than dismissing the complaint outright.

Analysis: Jurisdictional Question and OMB‑DOJ Coordination

The Court addressed Alfredo’s contention that the complaint should have been referred to the DOJ or provincial/city prosecutor because the offense was not in relation to his office. It reiterated settled jurisprudence that the Ombudsman and DOJ have concurrent jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigations of public officers; the Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan but may choose to exercise its authority to investigate offenses not necessarily committed in relation to office. The OMB‑DOJ Joint Circular No. 95‑001 is an internal coordination guideline and does not strip the Ombudsman of jurisdiction. The Court thus found that the Ombudsman was authorized to conduct the preliminary investigation and need not have referred the matter to the DOJ.

Analysis: Condonation Argument

The Court explained the legal standard for condonation (forgiveness of the matrimonial offense) and noted that condonation requires forgiveness of the specific matrimonial offense and generally implies that the wrongdoer will not reoffend and will treat the spouse with conjugal kindness. Rosa’s assertion that she believed Alfredo had ceased womanizing and her continued annual visits to Davao did not amount to condonation of the specific acts constituting concubinage (i.e., keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling or cohabiting under the enumerated circumstances). The Court emphasized that a general tolerance or hope for change does not

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 196842)

Case Caption, Docket and Court

G.R. No. 196842, Second Division, Decision promulgated October 09, 2013; reported at 719 Phil. 367; 110 OG No. 26, 4118 (June 30, 2014).
Petition for certiorari by Alfredo Romulo A. Busuego (petitioner) seeking annulment and setting aside of:
- Resolution of the Ombudsman dated 17 April 2009; and
- Order dated October 2010,
  which directed the filing of an Information for Concubinage under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code against petitioner Alfredo Romulo A. Busuego.

Parties and Roles

Petitioner: Alfredo Romulo A. Busuego (also referred to as Alfredo), designated Chief of Hospital, Davao Regional Hospital, Apokon, Tagum City.
Private respondent / offended spouse and complainant: Rosa S. Busuego (Rosa), wife of Alfredo.
Impleaded alleged concubines: Emy Sia (Sia) and Julie (or Julie) de Leon (de Leon).
Investigating body and respondent to petition: Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao).

Facts — Marriage, Family and Early Marital Breakdown

Alfredo and Rosa were married on 12 July 1975 at the Assumption Church, Davao City.
The marriage produced two sons: Alfred (born 1976) and Robert (born 1978).
Sometime in 1983, Rosa discovered photographs and love letters addressed to Alfredo from other women; Alfredo denied knowledge and wrongdoing.
Alfredo allegedly spent little time with family, coming home late on weekdays, leaving early, and spending weekends with friends; family time was described as rarely exceeding an hour.
Rosa pursued employment as a nurse in New York, USA; Alfredo opposed her plan, leading to a violent incident in which Alfredo allegedly pointed a loaded gun at Rosa's right temple and fired shots outside the house; Rosa and her mother left for the US thereafter in March 1985.

Facts — United States Period, Family Dynamics and Financial Support

While in the US, Rosa became homesick and was later joined by her children, who were brought to the US by Alfredo.
Rosa reared the children in the US; Alfred was reared from grade school through university by Rosa; Robert finished high school, returned to Davao City to study medicine and lived with Alfredo.
During the period when the family (or parts thereof) were in the US, Alfredo allegedly did not send financial support; Rosa remitted funds to Alfredo at times, believing he had ceased womanizing.
Rosa continued to spend annual vacations in Davao City.

Facts — Discovery of Alleged Extra-Marital Relationships

Around 1997, Rosa learned that Emy Sia was residing at the conjugal home; Alfredo explained Sia was a nurse in a difficult situation and permitted her to stay in the maid’s quarters.
In October 2005, Rosa learned more of Alfredo’s alleged extra-marital relationships after Robert complained of his father’s illicit affairs and shabby treatment.
Robert executed an affidavit describing occurrences from July 1997 to January 1998: he observed Sia sleeping with his father in the conjugal bedroom and later learned from Sia that she was Alfredo’s mistress.
Sia was hospitalized at one point and, after discharge, resumed cohabitation with Alfredo until Sia later took another boyfriend.
Alfredo was alleged to have an affair with Julie de Leon; Robert claimed to have read SMS exchanges between Julie and Alfredo on Alfredo’s mobile phone.
On 23, 24, 30 and 31 December 2004, de Leon allegedly stayed in the conjugal dwelling and slept in the conjugal room the entire nights.
Househelpers Melissa S. Diambangan and Liza S. Diambangan executed a joint affidavit corroborating that Sia slept and stayed overnight with Alfredo in the conjugal bedroom and that de Leon stayed overnight in the conjugal bedroom on the specified December 2004 dates.
Sia reportedly referred to Alfredo as “Papa” and related private matters about his sexual relations with her.

Facts — Additional Allegations: Threats and RA 9262

Rosa alleged physical and verbal abuse by Alfredo during the marriage, including threats to “gun down” family members should he chance upon them in Tagum City after the affairs were confirmed.
On 22 March 2006, Alfredo purportedly dismissed house helper Liza Diambangan and threatened her.
Rosa’s complaint to the Ombudsman alleged three causes of action: (1) Concubinage under Article 334, RPC; (2) violation of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children); and (3) Grave Threats under Article 282, RPC.

Petitioner’s (Alfredo’s) Denials and Defenses Presented to the Ombudsman

Alfredo denied all accusations of concubinage, RA 9262 violations, and grave threats.
He claimed Rosa chose to live in the US despite his pleas; her allegations of photographs and letters were advanced to create grounds for a 1998 suit for legal separation.
Alfredo asserted physical implausibility of concubinage given his duties as Chief of Hospital and that he practically stayed at the hospital on workdays; visits home were infrequent and for household provision.
He contended that Robert’s presence in Davao City made cohabitation with Sia and de Leon more implausible.
Regarding Sia, Alfredo admitted Sia may have lived temporarily in the conjugal house in the maid’s quarters but denied keeping her as his mistress in the conjugal dwelling.
Regarding the December 2004 dates with de Leon, Alfredo argued those were busy hospital days requiring his presence.
Alfredo alleged Rosa condoned his womanizing because she continued annual visits and believed he had changed.
Alfredo argued procedural defect: the alleged concubines Sia and de Leon were not impleaded as respondents, invoking Article 344, RPC.

Ombudsman Proceedings — Clarificatory Hearing and Impleading of Alleged Concubines

The Ombudsman conducted a clarificatory hearing in which both parties were represented and were informed of the need to implead the alleged mistresses pursuant to Article 344, RPC.
The Ombudsman explained that refusal to allow amendment would prolong preliminary investigation, and that res judicata does not apply at the preliminary investigation stage; Rosa was directed to submit addresses of the alleged mistresses.
Rosa submitted an Ex-Parte Manifestation with last known addresses of Julie de Leon and Emy Sia.
On 24 June 2008, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Order impleading Sia and de Leon as party-respondents in the complaint for concubinage and directing them to submit counter-affidavits.
Copies of the Joint Order were mailed to the alleged mistresses’ last known addresses provided by Rosa; the copy to Sia was returned “Return to Sender; removed,” and the copy to de Leon was received on 3 September 2008 by Ananias de Leon.
Sia and de Leon did not submit counter-affidavits.

Procedural Motions Before the Ombudsman

Alfredo filed a Comment to the 24 June 2008 Order with Motion to Dismiss and/or Refer the charges to the appropriate Provincial/City Prosecutor, arguing:
- Failure to implead the two mistresses in violation of Article 344, RPC; and
- Alternatively, referral to the Office of the City Prosecutor as provided in OMB-DOJ Circular No. 95-001.
Rosa filed a Reply to Alfredo’s pleading.
The Ombudsman addressed these procedural issues in its Resolution dated 17 April 2009.

Ombudsman Resolution (17 April 2009) — Rulings on Procedural Questions and Merits

On the alleged procedural infirmity (failure to implead): the Ombudsman found Alfredo’s position misplaced, explained that the c