Tirol, Jr. v. Commission on Audit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Victoriano B. Tirol, Jr., then Regional Director of DECS Region VIII, along with other DECS officials, was charged with violation of Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for allegedly entering into a contract for the purchase of school equipment that was manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government. The charge stemmed from an audit report by the Commission on Audit (COA) which found overpricing of supplies and equipment purchased through a negotiated contract instead of public bidding, contrary to COA Circular No. 85-55A. The total overprice amounted to ₱35,100.00. Procedural History: The COA recommended the filing of criminal and administrative cases. The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas found petitioner and his co-respondents criminally culpable and recommended their indictment. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. An Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the Ombudsman's resolution and order. The Petition: Petitioner sought the reversal of the Ombudsman's resolution and order, arguing that his approval of the Requisition and Issue Voucher (RIV) and the issuance of the check were merely ministerial acts, as the documents were previously reviewed and certified by his subordinates. He contended that he had no knowledge of any irregularity and that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions should apply. He also cited cases where heads of office were allowed to rely on their subordinates. He further argued that the Ombudsman erred in concluding he was liable for overpricing and that conspiracy was not proven.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court can review the factual findings of the Ombudsman regarding petitioner's alleged good faith and the existence of conspiracy. Whether petitioner's act of approving the RIV and signing the check constituted a violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019. Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reset the hearing.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Resolution of 20 March 1997 and Order of 5 March 1998 of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-Visayas-Crim-94-0836 are affirmed. Double costs against petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of reviewing factual findings of the Ombudsman: The Supreme Court reiterated that it is not a trier of facts and its jurisdiction in petitions for review on certiorari is limited to questions of law. The determination of whether petitioner acted in good faith and whether conspiracy existed are questions of fact that fall within the original exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The Court emphasized that it ordinarily does not interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman to determine whether there exists reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. Petitioner failed to convince the Court that his case falls within any of the exceptions to this rule, such as grave abuse of discretion. On whether petitioner's acts constituted a violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019: The Court found that the determination of whether the acts were done in good faith and whether conspiracy existed involved questions of fact. The Ombudsman believed otherwise, and the Court deferred to the Ombudsman's discretion in prosecuting cases. The Court noted that the rulings in Arias v. Sandiganbayan and Magsuci v. Sandiganbayan, cited by the petitioner, were based on specific findings of fact made by the Sandiganbayan after trial, which were then reviewed by the Supreme Court. In this case, the Ombudsman's findings were being challenged, and the Court would not re-evaluate the evidence presented. On the Sandiganbayan's denial of the motion to reset hearing: While this was raised as an issue, the Court's primary focus was on the petition concerning the Ombudsman's resolution. The Court's denial of the petition on the merits regarding the Ombudsman's actions rendered this procedural issue moot in the context of the Supreme Court's review. The Court also noted that petitioner's counsel's actions, including filing multiple petitions, appeared to be a scheme to frustrate the ends of justice by delaying the resolution of the case, which the Court strongly condemned.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's discretion to determine whether there exists reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof, absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the Court's jurisdiction in petitions for review on certiorari is limited to questions of law, not fact, and it is not a trier of facts.