Case Summary (G.R. No. 1523)
Issues Presented
- Whether the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction by disapproving the OSP resolution.
- Whether the Ombudsman’s disapproval rested on misapprehension of facts and conjectures.
- Whether R.A. 6770 is unconstitutional for subsuming the OSP under the Ombudsman contrary to the constitutional separation between investigative and prosecutorial functions.
Constitutionality of R.A. 6770 under the 1987 Constitution
The Court reaffirmed that the 1987 Constitution vests the Ombudsman with powers “to exercise such other functions or duties as may be provided by law.” Congress validly conferred prosecutorial authority and placed the OSP under the Ombudsman through R.A. 6770. Precedents (Acop v. Office of the Ombudsman; Camanag v. Guerrero; Office of the Ombudsman v. Valera; Perez v. Sandiganbayan) uniformly upheld the statute’s constitutionality.
Stare Decisis and Precedential Value
Under Article 8, Civil Code, and settled doctrine, Supreme Court rulings form part of the legal system and are binding unless strong, compelling reasons justify departure. Petitioners failed to demonstrate any justification to overturn decades of consistent jurisprudence affirming the Ombudsman’s prosecutorial powers and control over the OSP.
Scope of Certiorari Review
Certiorari under Rule 65 corrects errors of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion, not mere errors of judgment or factual re-evaluation. Alleged misapprehensions underlying the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause cannot be addressed via certiorari, which does not permit re-weighing evidence or reassessing credibility.
Independe
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 1523)
Antecedent Facts
- On July 22, 1998, the Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau of the Ombudsman filed Complaint-Affidavit OMB-0-98-1500 against petitioners for (1) Illegal Use of Public Funds under Article 220, Revised Penal Code, and (2) violation of Section 3(a) and (e), Republic Act No. 3019.
- The complaint alleged that Congressman Carmelo F. Lazatin had misused his 1996 Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) by acting as proponent, implementer, disbursing officer, and claimant of eighteen checks totaling ₱4,868,277.08.
- With the assistance of co-petitioners Marino A. Morales, Teodoro L. David, and Angelito A. Pelayo, Lazatin was said to have converted his CDF into cash.
Preliminary Investigation and Filing of Informations
- May 29, 2000: The Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau (EPIB) issued a Resolution recommending fourteen counts of Malversation and fourteen counts of RA 3019 violations against each petitioner.
- The Ombudsman approved the EPIB Resolution, resulting in 28 Informations (Criminal Case Nos. 26087–26114) filed before the Sandiganbayan, Third Division.
- Petitioners moved for reconsideration/reinvestigation before the Sandiganbayan, which were granted, and the cases were ordered re-evaluated.
Office of the Special Prosecutor Resolution
- September 18, 2000: The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) submitted a Resolution recommending dismissal of all criminal cases for lack or insufficiency of evidence.
- October 24, 2000: The Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) reviewed and recommended disapproval of the OSP Resolution and directed the OSP to proceed with trial.
- October 27, 2000: The Ombudsman adopted the OLA recommendation, disapproved the OSP Resolution, and ordered aggressive prosecution; the cases were returned to the Sandiganbayan.
Petition for Certiorari
- Petitioners challenged the Ombudsman’s disapproval by filing a Rule 65 certiorari petition, alleging:
• Grave abuse of discretion and lack or excess of jurisdiction by the Ombud