Soriano v. Marcelo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Hilario P. Soriano filed a complaint for Falsification of Public Documents and Use of Falsified Document against Mely S. Palad, a bank examiner. Assistant City Prosecutor Celedonio P. Balasbas recommended the filing of the falsification charge but recommended dropping the use of falsified document charge. Subsequently, Palad filed a Motion to Re-Open Case, alleging she was not notified. The case was reopened upon recommendation of 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Leoncia R. Dimagiba and approval of City Prosecutor Ramon R. Garcia. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a criminal complaint against Balasbas before the Office of the Ombudsman for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, alleging that Balasbas gave Palad unwarranted advantage through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and gross inexcusable negligence. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for want of sufficient basis, which was affirmed upon reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, assailing the dismissal of his complaint against Balasbas, arguing that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction, in dismissing the complaint against Balasbas. Whether the elements of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 were met in Balasbas's actions, specifically regarding manifest partiality, evident bad faith, inexcusable negligence, and undue injury. Whether Balasbas's role and actions in the context of the approved recommendation to reopen the case, and his adherence to the directives of his superiors, constitute grounds for liability.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Resolution dated 29 July 2002 and the Order dated 14 July 2003 of the Office of the Ombudsman are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court held that a petition for certiorari is a remedy for errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. The petitioner's arguments primarily concern the evaluation of evidence and the correctness of the Ombudsman's findings, which fall under errors of judgment and are beyond the scope of certiorari. The Court reiterated that it will not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers, as this is based on a constitutional mandate and practical considerations to avoid hampering the office's functions. Grave abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. In this case, the Ombudsman did not act with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against Balasbas. On the elements of Section 3(e) of RA 3019: The Court reiterated the elements: (1) the accused is a public officer discharging official functions; (2) he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (3) his action caused undue injury or gave unwarranted benefits. The Court found that petitioner failed to show that Balasbas acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence. Furthermore, there was no undue injury as petitioner suffered no actual damage. On Balasbas's role and liability: The Court noted that Balasbas, as an investigating prosecutor, had no power over the final disposition of Palad's motion to reopen the case, as this was subject to the approval of his superiors. The reopening was recommended by Dimagiba and approved by the City Prosecutor. Balasbas's issuance of a subpoena was in pursuance of this approved recommendation. The Court also pointed out that Balasbas had objected to the reopening, indicating he did not necessarily favor it. The Court referenced a previous case, Soriano v. Marcelo, where a similar petition against Dimagiba was dismissed, finding that Dimagiba acted in good faith. The Court concluded that Balasbas had no recourse but to follow the recommendation of his superior, which was approved by the City Prosecutor, consistent with Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, which implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. Errors of judgment in the appreciation of evidence are not correctible by certiorari.