Domondon v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Four (4) separate informations were filed against petitioner Guillermo T. Domondon and others before the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan for violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). Subsequently, an additional information was filed against petitioner and others before the First Division of the Sandiganbayan in Crim. Case No. 20574, arising from alleged chain of irregularities within the Philippine National Police (PNP) in CY 1992, including irregular issuance of Advices of Sub-Allotments, ghost purchases, forged payrolls, and false issuances of combat, clothing and individual equipment (CCIE), valued at P83,600,000.00. Petitioner, as then Director of the Office of Directorate for Controllership (ODC), approved the release of Advice of Allotment (ASAs) Nos. 4363 and 4400, amounting to P5 million and P15 million, respectively, which were signed by his co-accused with his authority. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a motion for consolidation of Crim. Case No. 20574 with the other cases pending before the Third Division. The First Division of the Sandiganbayan issued Orders requiring the prosecution to demonstrate the probable complicity of certain accused and deferring action on the motion for consolidation due to uncertainty regarding probable cause and the fact that the motion was filed by only one of the accused. The arraignment in Crim. Case No. 20574 was cancelled. An Order was issued recommending the amendment of the information in Crim. Case No. 20574 to exclude some accused but continue prosecution against others, including petitioner. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and consolidation, which was modified to exclude him from the information and deny consolidation. However, this order was disapproved by the Ombudsman, who recommended proceeding with the prosecution of petitioner. An amended information was filed, including petitioner among others recommended for further prosecution. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to nullify the Order of the Office of the Special Prosecutor/Ombudsman denying his motion for reconsideration and consolidation, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. He contended that there was no probable cause against him and that the respondents disregarded his evidence. He also argued that the denial of consolidation was a grave abuse of discretion, as jurisdiction had revested in the Ombudsman for reinvestigation.
Issue(s)
Whether there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when respondents Villa and Desierto denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Whether there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when respondents Desierto, Villa, and Tamayo denied the petitioner's motion for consolidation. Whether the respondent First Division, Sandiganbayan should be enjoined from proceeding with the hearing and other incidents of Criminal Case No. 20574 against the petitioner during the pendency of the petition.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration: The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that criminal prosecutions may not be restrained except in specific instances, none of which were clearly met by the petitioner. The Court emphasized that it cannot interfere with the discretion of the fiscal or Ombudsman to determine the specificity and adequacy of the averments of the offense charged. While the Ombudsman has discretion to file a criminal case, the Supreme Court can review the action for abuse of discretion. However, grave abuse of discretion implies capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, which was not demonstrated by the respondents. The Ombudsman, based on reinvestigation, found sufficient probable cause to include the petitioner in the indictment, and this exercise of power based on a constitutional mandate should not be interfered with by the courts. The Court cited Ocampo, IV vs. Ombudsman to support the principle that courts should not interfere with the Ombudsman's investigatory and prosecutory powers unless there is grave abuse of discretion. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for consolidation: The Court found the denial of the motion for consolidation to be well-founded. It clarified that while the Ombudsman has discretion to determine whether to file a case, once the case is filed with the Sandiganbayan, the Sandiganbayan has full control over it. This control includes the decision on whether to dismiss or consolidate cases, which requires the approval of the Sandiganbayan, not the Ombudsman. The Court cited Ocampo, IV vs. Ombudsman for the principle that the Sandiganbayan, not the Ombudsman, has control of the case once filed. On the issue of enjoining the Sandiganbayan from proceeding: The Court found no basis to enjoin the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with the case. The petition for certiorari and prohibition was dismissed, meaning the Ombudsman's decision to proceed with the prosecution of petitioner in Crim. Case No. 20574 was upheld. The Court also noted that the exclusion of the petitioner from Crim. Case No. 20185, as manifested by the petitioner, would not affect the outcome of the present petition concerning Crim. Case No. 20574. The Court reiterated that it would not interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of powers in the absence of grave abuse of discretion. If the petitioner believed his complicity in other cases was the same as in Crim. Case No. 20185, his recourse was with the Sandiganbayan where those cases were pending.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of investigatory and prosecutory powers in the absence of grave abuse of discretion. Once a case is filed with the Sandiganbayan, it is the Sandiganbayan, not the Ombudsman, that has full control over the case, including the consolidation of cases.