Galario v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Ruth P. Piano (private respondent) filed an affidavit-complaint against Jose M. Galario, Jr. (petitioner), then City Mayor of Valencia City, Bukidnon. Petitioner had issued two memoranda on July 2, 2001, transferring private respondent from City Budget Officer to City Liaison Officer, a newly created position. Private respondent opposed this, filing a complaint for constructive dismissal with the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The CSC-Regional Office ordered her reinstatement as City Budget Officer and payment of RATA. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, and his subsequent appeal to the CSC-Main Office was also dismissed, affirming the reinstatement order. Procedural History: Despite CSC orders, petitioner issued Memorandum Order No. 07-55 on July 25, 2003, ostensibly reinstating private respondent but subsequently, on July 28, 2003, barred her from signing financial documents, assigning these tasks to Bartolome Barte. Petitioner also issued Memorandum Order No. 07-65 on July 30, 2003, directing private respondent to transfer offices. The CSC opined that there was no impediment to her performing her duties. After further motions for execution and petitioner's issuance of letters declaring the Budget Officer position vacant, the CSC issued Resolution No. 04-1003 on September 7, 2004, directing petitioner to allow private respondent to perform all duties of City Budget Officer and to hold office at the City Budget Office, warning of contempt and appropriate charges for non-compliance. The Petition: Private respondent then filed administrative and criminal complaints with the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao (OMB-Mindanao). The OMB-Mindanao issued a Resolution dated November 26, 2004, finding probable cause to indict petitioner for violation of Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), and an Order dated January 7, 2005, denying his motion for reconsideration. Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, seeking to nullify these issuances, arguing grave abuse of discretion for finding probable cause despite the absence of elements for Section 3(f) and alleging denial of due process as the complaint was for Section 3(e) and not 3(f).
Issue(s)
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding probable cause to indict petitioner for violation of Section 3(f) of R.A. 3019. Whether petitioner was denied due process because the Ombudsman found probable cause for violation of Section 3(f) of R.A. 3019 when the complaint-affidavit alleged a violation of Section 3(e) of the same Act. Whether the OMB-Mindanao correctly determined the existence of probable cause for violation of Section 3(f) of R.A. 3019 based on the evidence presented.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari for lack of merit. The Resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao dated November 26, 2004, finding probable cause against petitioner Jose M. Galario, Jr. for violation of Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 3019, and the Order dated January 7, 2005, denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, were affirmed. The Court ordered that the appropriate information be filed against the petitioner before the Sandiganbayan.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and probable cause for violation of Section 3(f) of R.A. 3019: The Court held that the OMB-Mindanao did not commit grave abuse of discretion. A finding of probable cause requires evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and there is enough reason to believe it was committed by the accused; it does not require certainty of guilt. The OMB-Mindanao based its finding on various affidavits, memoranda, and other evidence submitted by both parties, who were given the opportunity to present their sides. The Court reiterated that findings of fact by the Ombudsman are generally not reviewable unless there is a clear case of grave abuse of discretion. On the issue of denial of due process and the change in the offense charged: The Court ruled that the Ombudsman has the power to file an indictment for an offense different from what was charged in the initiatory complaint if warranted by the evidence developed during the preliminary investigation, citing Avila v. Sandiganbayan and Ombudsman and Enrile vs. Salazar. The Court emphasized that the Ombudsman's constitutional mandate to investigate and prosecute is plenary and not limited by the allegations in the complaint-affidavit. The Ombudsman can determine the proper crime based on the findings of the preliminary investigation, provided due process is observed. In this case, the OMB-Mindanao found that while Section 3(e) might not have been fully established due to lack of proof of undue injury, the evidence supported a charge under Section 3(f). On the sufficiency of evidence for Section 3(f) of R.A. 3019: The Court found no reason to disturb the OMB-Mindanao's findings. The OMB-Mindanao detailed the petitioner's actions, including delays in implementing CSC orders, attempts to intimidate private respondent, offers to resign, designation of another person to sign financial documents, and declaring the position vacant. These acts, as evaluated by the OMB-Mindanao, supported the conclusion that petitioner neglected or refused to act without sufficient justification to favor his own interest or give undue advantage to Bartolome Barte, thus constituting a violation of Section 3(f). The Court found the OMB-Mindanao's justification for the finding of probable cause to be well-founded based on the presented evidence.
Main Doctrine
The Ombudsman has the discretion to determine the proper offense to be charged based on evidence presented during preliminary investigation, even if different from the offense alleged in the complaint-affidavit, provided due process is observed. A finding of probable cause requires only evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and there is enough reason to believe it was committed by the accused, not absolute certainty.