Lazatin v. Desierto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns allegations of illegal use of public funds and violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, against petitioners Carmelo F. Lazatin, Marino A. Morales, Teodoro L. David, and Angelito A. Pelayo. Specifically, the complaint alleged irregularities in the use of Congressman Lazatin's Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) for 1996, where he allegedly acted as both proponent and implementer of projects, signed disbursement vouchers as Disbursing Officer, and received checks totaling P4,868,277.08, thereby converting the CDF into cash with the assistance of the other petitioners. Procedural History: A Complaint-Affidavit was filed on July 22, 1998, leading to a Resolution on May 29, 2000, recommending the filing of fourteen counts each of Malversation of Public Funds and violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 against the petitioners. This recommendation was approved by the Ombudsman, and twenty-eight Informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan granted the petitioners' motions for reconsideration/reinvestigation and ordered the prosecution to re-evaluate the cases. Subsequently, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) recommended the dismissal of the cases, but the Ombudsman disapproved this resolution after a review by the Office of the Legal Affairs (OLA), ordering the OSP to proceed with the trial. The Petition: Petitioners seek certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to reverse the Ombudsman's disapproval of the OSP's resolution recommending dismissal. They argue that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion, asserting that the Ombudsman lacks the constitutional authority to overturn the OSP's resolution, as the OSP is a distinct entity with prosecutorial powers. They also contend that R.A. No. 6770, which places the OSP under the Ombudsman, is unconstitutional. Furthermore, they claim the Ombudsman's decision was based on misapprehension of facts, speculations, surmises, and conjectures, and that the checks were issued as reimbursement for personal advances made by petitioner Lazatin.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion or without or in excess of jurisdiction in disapproving the OSP's Resolution recommending dismissal. Whether the questioned resolution was based on misapprehension of facts, speculations, surmises, and conjectures. Whether R.A. No. 6770, placing the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) under the Office of the Ombudsman and granting prosecutorial powers, is unconstitutional. Whether the doctrine of stare decisis should be set aside in this case.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Ombudsman's authority to disapprove the OSP Resolution: The Court held that the Ombudsman has the constitutional and statutory authority to review and disapprove resolutions of the OSP. This power is derived from R.A. No. 6770, which places the OSP under the Ombudsman's supervision and control. The Court reiterated its consistent ruling that the Ombudsman has wide latitude in exercising its investigatory and prosecutory powers and is free from intervention from the other branches of government to ensure its independence. The disapproval of the OSP Resolution by the Ombudsman was an exercise of this power, and petitioners failed to demonstrate that this action was attended by grave abuse of discretion, which implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. On the alleged misapprehension of facts, speculations, surmises, and conjectures: The Court clarified that the issue of whether the evidence supports a finding of probable cause is a matter of error of judgment, not an error of jurisdiction. Certiorari is a remedy for errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. The petition for certiorari does not allow for a re-examination of facts and evidence or a re-evaluation of the probative value thereof. Therefore, the Court would not delve into the correctness of the Ombudsman's evaluation of the evidence. On the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6770: The Court found the petitioners' attack on the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6770 to be stale, as it has been settled jurisprudence that the provisions granting the Ombudsman prosecutorial powers and placing the OSP under its office are constitutional. Citing Acop v. Office of the Ombudsman, the Court explained that Congress has the power to prescribe other powers and functions to the Ombudsman, as provided in paragraph 8, Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution. This includes placing the OSP under the Ombudsman's office and granting it prosecutorial powers. On the application of stare decisis: The Court emphasized the importance of the doctrine of stare decisis, which mandates adherence to judicial precedents to ensure certainty and stability in judicial decisions. The petitioners failed to present any strong and compelling reason to abandon the established jurisprudence on the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6770 and the Ombudsman's powers. Therefore, the Court saw no justification to set aside the doctrine in this case.
Main Doctrine
The Ombudsman has the constitutional and statutory authority to review and disapprove resolutions of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) recommending dismissal of cases, and the exercise of this power, when supported by substantial evidence, is not subject to review by certiorari as it does not constitute grave abuse of discretion. The constitutionality of R.A. No. 6770, placing the OSP under the Ombudsman's supervision and granting prosecutorial powers, has been settled jurisprudence and cannot be overturned without strong and compelling reasons.