Ocampo v. Honorable Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Governor Mariano Un Ocampo III and his son, petitioner Mariano F. Ocampo IV, were charged with violation of Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, in two separate informations before the Sandiganbayan. The charges alleged that on September 1, 1988, and August 30, 1988, Governor Ocampo III, as governor of Tarlac and President-Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Lingkod Tarlac Foundation, Inc. (LTFI), in connivance with his son, Ocampo IV, loaned P5,476,031.00 and P7,000,000.00 from the National Aid for Local Government Funds (NALGF) of Tarlac to IMCOR (now New Territory Manufacturing, Inc.), a private corporation of which Ocampo IV was an incorporator and stockholder. These loans were allegedly interest-free, without collateral, and without a definite repayment date, terms considered grossly disadvantageous to the government. Procedural History: On June 28, 1991, Mariano F. Ocampo IV filed a motion for reinvestigation with the Sandiganbayan, which was granted on August 8, 1991. After reinvestigation, Special Prosecutors Roger C. Berbano, Sr. and Rodolfo F. Reynoso recommended the dismissal of the informations against both Ocampo III and Ocampo IV, finding that Ocampo IV did not connive with his father and was likely used to complete IMCOR's organizational setup for SEC registration. However, the Ombudsman, in a memorandum dated November 27, 1991, disapproved this recommendation. The Petition: Mariano F. Ocampo IV filed the present petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the Ombudsman's memorandum, alleging that it was rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in disapproving the recommendation of the special prosecutors to dismiss the informations against the petitioner. Whether the Supreme Court can restrain criminal prosecutions through a writ of certiorari.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion: The Court held that the petition fails to show a grave abuse of discretion or any act without or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the respondent Ombudsman. The Ombudsman's act of disapproving the recommendation of the special prosecutors was not whimsical, capricious, vindictive, or arbitrary. Instead, it was an exercise of his constitutional mandate and prerogative, as he sincerely believed there was sufficient evidence to indict both accused. The Court reiterated that criminal prosecutions may not be restrained except in specific instances, and interfering with the Ombudsman's discretion in determining whether to file a case is generally not permissible. The rule is based on respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted to the Office of the Ombudsman and for practicality, to avoid hampering the functions of the courts with innumerable petitions assailing investigatory proceedings. The Solicitor General's manifestation, suggesting that the petitioner need not suffer the pain of trial if evidence is insufficient, was noted but did not override the Ombudsman's discretion. The Court emphasized that once a case is filed with the Sandiganbayan, it is the Sandiganbayan, not the Ombudsman, which has full control, and informations cannot be dismissed without the court's approval. On the issue of whether the Supreme Court can restrain criminal prosecutions: The Court cited well-settled rules that criminal prosecutions may not be restrained through preliminary or final injunction or prohibition, except in specific instances. These instances include affording adequate protection to constitutional rights, necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression, existence of a prejudicial question, acts of the officer being without or in excess of authority, prosecution under an invalid law, double jeopardy, lack of jurisdiction over the offense, persecution rather than prosecution, charges being manifestly false and motivated by lust for vengeance, clearly no prima facie case when a motion to quash has been denied, or when preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to prevent unlawful arrest. The present petition for certiorari did not fall under any of these exceptions, as the Ombudsman's action was deemed a valid exercise of discretion.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's discretion to determine whether a criminal case should be filed, as long as the disapproval of a recommendation to dismiss is not whimsical, capricious, vindictive, or arbitrary, and is based on a sincere belief of sufficient evidence to indict.