Parma v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Fernando C. Parma, Jr., then a councilor, and Vice Mayor Nelson B. Julia, made official trips in June 2004 to follow up a donation from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) for a medical mission. Upon their return, they liquidated their travel cash advances, submitting, among other documents, certificates of appearance/attendance. Respondent Mayor Lourdes A. Señar alleged that the certificates of attendance submitted by Parma and Julia were spurious, as evidenced by a letter from PCSO disowning them. Procedural History: Based on the alleged spurious certificates, Señar filed multiple complaints against Parma and Julia with the Ombudsman. The first complaint (OMB-L-C-04-1054-K) charged falsification of official documents and dishonesty. A second complaint (OMB-L-C-05-0165-B) charged violations of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and dishonesty. A third complaint (OMB-L-C-05-0244-C) charged falsification of an official document related to a different trip. A fourth complaint (OMB-L-C-05-0296-C) charged falsification of official documents related to the June 2004 trips, specifically citing spurious certificates dated June 24, 2004, and June 18, 2004. Parma failed to file a counter-affidavit for OMB-L-C-05-0296-C, leading the Ombudsman to issue a Resolution on August 17, 2005, finding probable cause to charge Parma with falsification of official document under Article 171, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. A Joint Order dated November 30, 2005, denied Parma's motion for reconsideration. Meanwhile, the Ombudsman dismissed the second and third complaints. The perjury cases filed by Mrs. Ruena Tino against Irene M. Durante were dismissed. The RTC denied Parma's motion to suspend proceedings and proceeded with arraignment. The Petition: Parma filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the Ombudsman's August 17, 2005 Resolution and November 30, 2005 Joint Order in OMB-L-C-05-0296-C, alleging grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon gravely abused its discretion when it issued the assailed Resolution and Joint Order, and whether the Ombudsman erred in not applying res judicata based on the dismissal of OMB-L-C-05-0165-B. Whether the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon gravely abused its discretion in failing to consider its finding in OMB-L-C-05-0244-C regarding the private respondent's alleged propensity to use falsified certificates of appearance against the petitioner, and whether the evidence presented was sufficient. Whether the petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to review the sufficiency of evidence and re-evaluate the Ombudsman's findings, particularly concerning the authenticity and submission of the certificate of appearance.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED, and the assailed Resolution dated August 17, 2005, and the Joint Order of November 30, 2005, of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the relevance of other Ombudsman cases: The Court held that the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause in OMB-L-C-05-0296-C was not attended by grave abuse of discretion. The Court clarified that OMB-L-C-05-0165-B, dismissed for alleged use of public funds for a private purpose, had a distinct cause of action from the falsification charge in OMB-L-C-05-0296-C, thus the dismissal of the former did not have the effect of res judicata on the latter. The Court emphasized that a petition for certiorari is not meant to correct errors of judgment but only to address acts performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner's claim that the Ombudsman should have considered its findings in other cases was unavailing because those cases had different causes of action and required dissimilar evidentiary proof. The Court reiterated that it cannot weigh evidence to determine probable cause, as this is an executive function properly exercised by the Ombudsman. On the failure to consider findings in related cases and the sufficiency of evidence: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the Ombudsman's handling of the related cases. It reiterated that OMB-L-C-05-0165-B and OMB-L-C-05-0244-C had distinct causes of action from OMB-L-C-05-0296-C. The former involved alleged use of public funds for private purpose, while the latter was for falsification of a certificate of appearance. The latter case, OMB-L-C-05-0244-C, involved a spurious certificate for a February 2004 trip, whereas the instant case, OMB-L-C-05-0296-C, revolved around a certificate for a June 2004 trip. The Court also noted that in the instant case, Parma presented only a photocopy of the purported authentic certificate of appearance, unlike in OMB-L-C-05-0244-C. Therefore, the Ombudsman's findings in the dismissed cases did not preclude it from finding probable cause in the case at bar, as the elements and evidence required were different. On the sufficiency of evidence and review in certiorari: The Court stressed that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is confined to the issue of whether the executive determination of probable cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to want of jurisdiction. It cannot be used to review the sufficiency of the evidence against the petitioner or to re-evaluate evidence to determine the author of falsified documents, as this is a function of the Ombudsman. The Court cited Longos Rural Waterworks and Sanitation Association, Inc. v. Hon. Desierto for the principle that it cannot pass upon the sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence to determine the lack or existence of probable cause. The Court also pointed out that Parma failed to submit the original certificate of appearance with his liquidation report, and the belated submission of the original document to the Supreme Court raised questions about its authenticity and issuance date. The Court concluded that Parma had only himself to blame for the non-submission of the required document during the Ombudsman's investigation.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause is limited to determining whether the executive determination of probable cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to want of jurisdiction, and cannot be used to review the sufficiency of evidence or re-evaluate evidence to determine the author of falsified documents.