Nava v. Commission on Audit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An audit investigation by the Commission on Audit (COA) in Davao City revealed that the Department of Education and Culture (DECS) Division Office procured construction materials from Giomiche Incorporated at prices significantly exceeding prevailing market rates in Davao City, resulting in a government loss of P512,967.69. The procurement was also found to have been made without public bidding, and payments were split in violation of COA rules. Procedural History: The COA Regional Office transmitted its audit report to the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao, which found prima facie evidence and directed petitioner Venancio R. Nava and other DECS officials to file their answers. The Ombudsman subsequently issued a Resolution on July 25, 1996, recommending the filing of criminal Informations for violation of Section 3(g) and (e) of RA 3019 and falsification against petitioner and others. An Information was filed before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner moved for reinvestigation, which was ordered by the Sandiganbayan. On May 21, 1998, the Special Prosecutor recommended dropping petitioner from the Information, finding his participation to be purely ministerial. However, the Ombudsman disapproved this recommendation and ordered the prosecution to proceed. The Petition: Petitioner Venancio R. Nava filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the Ombudsman's disapproval of the Special Prosecutor's recommendation. He argued that the Ombudsman gravely erred in concluding he was liable for violating Section 3(g) of RA 3019, asserting his actions were ministerial and performed in good faith, relying on subordinates' recommendations. He also contended that the Ombudsman erred in not applying pertinent decisions absolving him. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the petition, finding the remedy availed of to be erroneous (Rule 45 instead of Rule 65) and, even if considered under Rule 65, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman, stating that petitioner's defenses were evidentiary matters best resolved at a full trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the Honorable Ombudsman gravely erred in concluding that the petitioner is liable for violation of Section 3(g) of RA 3019 in approving the disbursement voucher, purchase order, invitation to bid, and in signing the checks for payment. Whether the Honorable Ombudsman gravely erred in not absolving the petitioner by not applying in his favor pertinent decisions of the Honorable Court in the cases of Arias v. Sandiganbayan and Magsuei v. Sandiganbayan. Whether the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the proper remedy to assail the Ombudsman's resolution in a preliminary investigation of a criminal case.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Sandiganbayan is directed to proceed with the arraignment and trial of the case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the petitioner's liability for violation of Section 3(g) of RA 3019: The petitioner's arguments that he acted in good faith and that his actions were merely ministerial are evidentiary in nature and constitute matters of defense. These defenses are best passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits. A preliminary investigation is not the occasion for an exhaustive display of evidence but merely to determine if a crime has been committed and if there is probable cause to believe the accused is guilty thereof. The Ombudsman's finding of probable cause is sufficient to warrant prosecution, leaving the determination of guilt or innocence to the trial court. On the application of cited cases (Arias v. Sandiganbayan and Magsuei v. Sandiganbayan): The Court noted that the petitioner's reliance on these cases was misplaced in the context of a preliminary investigation. The issues raised by the petitioner regarding his participation and the nature of his acts are factual matters that require a full trial to resolve. The preliminary investigation stage is not the proper venue to definitively rule on such defenses, which are more appropriately addressed during the trial proper where evidence can be fully presented and evaluated. On the propriety of the remedy and the alleged grave abuse of discretion: The Court held that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is not the proper remedy to assail resolutions of the Ombudsman in preliminary investigations of criminal cases. Rule 45 applies only to judgments or final orders of specific courts, not to Ombudsman resolutions. The appropriate remedy, when the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. By availing of the wrong remedy, the petition merits outright dismissal. Even if the petition were treated as one filed under Rule 65, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman was merely exercising his constitutional mandate in disapproving the recommendation to drop the petitioner. The determination of the existence of probable cause is within the Ombudsman's powers, and courts generally adopt a policy of non-interference in such exercise to avoid hampering the Ombudsman's functions. The Court emphasized that the Ombudsman's power to determine probable cause is not to be interfered with unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the incorrect remedy to assail resolutions of the Ombudsman in preliminary investigations of criminal cases; the proper remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Furthermore, the determination of probable cause by the Ombudsman is generally given wide latitude and non-interference by the courts, and issues of good faith and reliance on subordinates are matters of defense to be threshed out during a full-blown trial.