Maturan v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Antonio Balay Maturan, while serving as the municipal mayor of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur, was accused of causing the purchase and installation of an 80-foot radio antenna at his residence. A complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman alleged that this transaction was overpriced and that the antenna was installed at his private residence instead of the Municipal Hall. The Commission on Audit (COA) conducted a special audit, finding that the purchase price of P17,200 exceeded the prevailing market price by P6,750, which was more than the allowable 10% variance. Consequently, two Informations were filed against Maturan before the Sandiganbayan: one for violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) for causing undue injury to the government by installing the antenna at his residence, and another for violation of Section 3(g) of the same act for entering into a contract manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government due to the overpricing. Procedural History: Maturan filed a Motion for Reinvestigation with the Sandiganbayan, which was granted. The Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao, through Ombudsman Special Prosecutor Jesus A. Micael, recommended the dismissal of both cases, finding the overpricing allegation unfounded due to unincluded installation and accessory costs, and deeming the antenna installation at the mayor's residence justified by a resolution from the Association of Barangay Councils (ABC) to facilitate communication with constituents. However, Ombudsman Aniano Desierto directed the Office of the Chief Legal Counsel to review this resolution. The Chief Legal Counsel recommended withdrawing the charge under Section 3(g) but sustaining the charge under Section 3(e), arguing that the antenna should not have been installed on private property, and its subsequent transfer incurred unnecessary expenses. Ombudsman Desierto approved this recommendation on September 12, 2001. The Petition: Aggrieved by the Ombudsman's Order dated September 12, 2001, Maturan filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the order that found probable cause for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The Ombudsman, however, argued that the petition was technically flawed, contending that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not a petition for review under Rule 45, was the proper remedy, as the Supreme Court can only review the Ombudsman's actions in cases of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the procedural defect, proceeded to resolve the substantive issues for the sake of speedy disposition. It affirmed that the Ombudsman has the discretion to disagree with his investigating officers and that the decision to proceed with the charge under Section 3(e) was not arbitrary, thus denying the petition for lack of merit.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court should give due course to the petition for review, considering it is not the proper remedy to assail an Ombudsman order in a criminal case. Whether the Ombudsman can arrive at his own conclusion different from his investigating officers; and whether the Ombudsman's resolution was arbitrary, considering conflicting findings and the petitioner's argument of good faith.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Order dated September 12, 2001, of the Office of the Ombudsman is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Court held that a petition for review under Rule 45 is not the proper remedy to assail an order of the Ombudsman in a criminal case. The right to appeal is granted only from orders or decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases, not in criminal cases. Therefore, the proper course of action for the petitioner should have been a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. While the Court may review the Ombudsman's action when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, this requires invoking Rule 65. By availing of the wrong remedy, the petition merits outright dismissal. On the Ombudsman's power to deviate from investigating officers' findings, and the merits of the case: The Court affirmed that the Ombudsman can arrive at his own conclusion different from his investigating officers. The Ombudsman Act of 1989 (Rep. Act No. 6770) confers supervision and control over the Office of the Special Prosecutor to the Ombudsman. It is discretionary for the Ombudsman to rely on the findings of fact of the investigating prosecutor. The Ombudsman can make his own findings of fact, and judicial review is not warranted unless grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction is demonstrated. The Ombudsman's decision in this case was not arbitrary or whimsical, as there were conflicting findings that warranted further review. Even if the petition were considered properly filed, it would not prosper. The conflicting findings of the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao and the Ombudsman Special Prosecutor provided a sufficient basis for the Ombudsman to order a review by the Office of the Chief Legal Counsel. The petitioner's argument regarding good faith in approving the purchase and installation of the radio antenna is evidentiary and a matter of defense that should have been raised in a full trial on the merits.
Main Doctrine
A petition for review under Rule 45 is not the proper remedy to assail an order of the Ombudsman in a criminal case; the proper remedy is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Ombudsman has the discretion to review and arrive at his own findings of fact, independent of the investigating prosecutor's recommendations, and courts will not interfere unless grave abuse of discretion is shown.