Acuña v. Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Celsa P. Acuña, a former teacher at Angeles City National Trade School (ACNTS), filed administrative and criminal complaints against respondent Pedro Pascua (Officer-In-Charge of ACNTS) and respondent Ronnie Turla (faculty member). The complaints stemmed from a dialogue held on July 16, 1998, which petitioner attended upon invitation by another teacher, Erlinda Yabut. In his counter-affidavit for the administrative case, respondent Pascua alleged that the complaint was a duplication of a prior DECS case and that petitioner was not an ACNTS employee, thus not authorized to attend the meeting which he (Pascua) called. Respondent Turla submitted a sworn statement confirming Pascua called the meeting. Procedural History: Petitioner charged Pascua and Turla with perjury before the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, alleging falsehood in their sworn statements regarding who called the July 16, 1998 meeting and the nature of the complaint filed. The Deputy Ombudsman dismissed the perjury complaint for lack of probable cause, finding no evidence of willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood on material matters. The motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, contending that the Deputy Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing her perjury complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner filed the petition on time. Whether public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint in OMB 1-99-2467 for lack of probable cause.
Ruling
The petition was filed on time, but it has no merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the Resolution dated April 4, 2000, and the Order dated June 19, 2000, of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, dismissing the petition for perjury.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of timely filing: The Court ruled that the petition was filed on time. It clarified that Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770, which provided a ten-day period for appeals from Ombudsman decisions in administrative cases, is no longer in force following the Fabian v. Desierto ruling. Furthermore, Section 27 applies only to administrative disciplinary cases, not to criminal cases. For criminal complaints before the Ombudsman, the remedy for an aggrieved party when the finding is tainted with grave abuse of discretion is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which has a 60-day reglementary period. Petitioner filed her petition within this period. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the perjury complaint: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The elements of perjury require a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood on a material matter. In this case, the statements made by respondents Pascua and Turla in their counter-affidavits were not found to be material to the administrative case (OMB-ADM-1-99-0387) nor were they willful and deliberate falsehoods. The letter requesting a dialogue and Pascua's counter-affidavit indicated that Pascua's consent to the request led to the meeting, making his statement that he called the meeting a good faith interpretation. Respondent Turla merely reiterated what Pascua told him. The Court emphasized that materiality must be proven by evidence, not inference, and petitioner failed to provide the DECS complaint for comparison. Therefore, the Ombudsman correctly dismissed the perjury complaint for lack of probable cause.
Main Doctrine
The dismissal of a perjury complaint by the Ombudsman for lack of probable cause will be affirmed if the statements made in the counter-affidavits do not constitute a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood on a material matter, and the complainant fails to present evidence to prove otherwise. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail rulings of the Ombudsman in criminal cases tainted with grave abuse of discretion.