Ombudsman v. Castro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A complaint for violation of the Social Security Act of 1997 was filed against spouses Salvador and Ethel Gonzales. Asst. City Prosecutor Victor C. Laborte recommended the filing of an information, which was filed on September 28, 2001. On October 10, 2001, the spouses Gonzales filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the resolution before the Office of the City Prosecutor. Respondent Asst. City Prosecutor Mary Ann T. Castro filed a Comment on the motion for reconsideration, recommending the dismissal of the complaint. Procedural History: The complainant alleged that Castro's action was irregular as a motion for reconsideration should not be entertained after an information has been filed. The Ombudsman found Castro guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and suspended her for six months without pay. The Court of Appeals annulled and set aside the Ombudsman's decision, holding that the City Prosecutor could review resolutions even after an information was filed, and that Castro's actions were presumed to be in the regular performance of her duties. The appellate court also noted that the trial judge was aware of the motion and comment, and ultimately dismissed the case based on his own assessment of the evidence. The Petition: The Office of the Ombudsman filed a petition for review on certiorari, arguing that Castro usurped the jurisdiction of the trial court by filing the Comment and recommending dismissal without leave of court.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Asst. City Prosecutor Mary Ann T. Castro committed conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service by filing a comment and recommending the dismissal of a case after an information had already been filed in court; and whether she usurped the jurisdiction of the trial court in filing the Comment and recommending the dismissal of the criminal case filed in court.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The July 23, 2004 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 77646 is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and usurpation of jurisdiction: The Supreme Court held that Castro's conduct in resolving the motion for reconsideration was not prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Court noted that it was within the discretion of the reviewing prosecutor, Castro, to uphold, modify, or reverse the findings of the initial investigating prosecutor, Laborte. The Court emphasized that a motion for reconsideration of a preliminary investigation resolution is allowed and is consistent with due process, as provided by Department of Justice Circular No. 70 and Section 56 of the Manual for Prosecutors. In this case, the information was filed before the spouses Gonzales could file their motion for reconsideration, thus depriving them of the right to a full preliminary investigation. The Court clarified that Castro did not usurp the jurisdiction of the trial court because her comment was merely recommendatory. The trial judge retained the authority to make an independent evaluation of the evidence and act accordingly. The Court cited Roberts, Jr. v. Court of Appeals to stress that the trial judge must be convinced of the insufficiency of evidence, not merely accept the prosecution's word. Furthermore, the Court acknowledged the ruling in Crespo v. Mogul which discourages the Secretary of Justice from entertaining appeals after a case is filed in court, but distinguished it by stating that Castro's participation was in compliance with orders from her superiors and she was performing her duty as a reviewing officer. The filing of the motion to withdraw the information based on Castro's comment was heard by the trial court, and the complainant's counsel was properly served, indicating awareness and opportunity to oppose. The trial judge was ultimately convinced that there was no basis for the complaint and ordered its dismissal.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a comment and recommendation to dismiss a case by a prosecutor, even after an information has been filed in court, is not necessarily conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, especially when it is done in compliance with orders from superiors and is merely recommendatory in nature, allowing the trial judge to exercise independent judgment.