Angeles v. Desierto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Adoracion G. Angeles filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus seeking to annul issuances in OMB-0-97-0047. This proceeding stemmed from a criminal complaint for physical abuse and maltreatment under R.A. No. 7610 filed against petitioner by her housemaids, Proclyn Pacay and Nancy Gaspar, before the Department of Justice (DOJ). Petitioner also filed an administrative complaint against Senior State Prosecutor (SSP) Hernani T. Barrios for dishonesty, gross negligence, and incompetence, and moved for his disqualification from resolving I.S. No. 95-224. Subsequently, another criminal complaint for violation of R.A. No. 7610 was filed against petitioner and her sister by Rebecca Pacay, which was consolidated with I.S. No. 95-224 and assigned to State Prosecutors (SPs) Richard Anthony D. Fadullon and Alfredo P. Agcaoili. These SPs recommended the dismissal of Rebecca Pacay's complaint and the filing of two informations against petitioner for violation of Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610. This recommendation was approved by Chief State Prosecutor (CSP) Jovencito Zuño. Petitioner's motion for partial reconsideration was denied by Acting CSP Pascualita Duran-Cereno, and her subsequent petition for review with the DOJ was also denied. Procedural History: Displeased with the DOJ's actions, petitioner filed an Affidavit-Complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB-0-97-0047) against Secretary Lina B. Laigo of the DSWD, Assistant Chief State Prosecutor Pascualita Duran-Cereno, SSP Hernani T. Barrios, and SPs Richard Anthony D. Fadullon and Alfredo P. Agcaoili. Petitioner accused them of violating Article 171(5) of the Revised Penal Code, Section 3(f) of R.A. No. 3019, and Sections 3(b)(4) and 3(c)(6) of R.A. No. 7610. Graft Investigation Officer II Roline M. Ginez-Jabalde recommended the dismissal of the complaint. This recommendation was approved by Special Prosecution Officer III Carlos D. Montemayor and subsequently by Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto, who denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus before the Supreme Court, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman and his investigating officers in dismissing OMB-0-97-0047. She sought to annul the issuances and to compel the Ombudsman to file informations for violations of Article 171(5) of the Revised Penal Code and Section 3(e) and (f) of R.A. No. 3019 against the named respondents.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint in OMB-0-97-0047. Whether the respondents conspired to indict the petitioner for maltreatment and falsification.
Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit and is hereby DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman: The Supreme Court reiterated its consistent ruling that the Ombudsman has full discretion to determine whether a criminal complaint should be dismissed or an Information filed. This determination is based on the Ombudsman's evaluation of the evidence and is generally unfettered by judicial interference, as it stems from a constitutional mandate. The Court emphasized that it should not interfere in the Ombudsman's exercise of powers unless there are good and compelling reasons, such as a clear case of grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic exercise of judgment, equivalent to a lack of jurisdiction or a virtual refusal to perform a duty. In this case, the Court found no such arbitrariness or despotism in the Ombudsman's dismissal of the complaint. On the alleged conspiracy among respondents: The Court held that the petitioner's bare allegation of intimacy among the respondents does not prove conspiracy, as conspiracy requires evidence of actual cooperation, not mere cognizance or approval. The Court found nothing on record to suggest that the respondents conspired to insure the indictment of the petitioner. The Ombudsman's observation that Secretary Laigo's coordination was a positive signal of her commitment to her job as protector of children's rights was noted. The continued custody of the children by DSWD was deemed to be for their benefit, and their exposure to litigation was a necessary consequence of their decision to file a complaint, not tantamount to child abuse. The alleged similarity between resolutions prepared by different respondents was attributed to their being lifted from the same set of records, not indicative of conspiracy. The charge of falsification against Barrios, Fadullon, and Agcaoili was dismissed, with the finding that Barrios had already disposed of the case by February 7, 1996, and the unsigned Joint Resolution had no legal effect. The affirmation of findings by respondent Duran-Cereno was considered a performance of her duties as a reviewing officer, and matters of evidence were best addressed during trial proper. The Court concluded that the petitioner had exhausted all available remedies, indicating that the prosecutors' findings were in accordance with law.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's discretion to determine whether a criminal complaint should be dismissed or an Information filed, absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.