Soriano v. Marcelo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Hilario Soriano filed a complaint against Mely Palad, a Bank Examiner, for falsification of public documents and use of falsified documents. An initial resolution recommended charging Palad, but this was reopened. Subsequently, Manila City Prosecutor Ramon Garcia endorsed the case to the Department of Justice (DOJ), citing Soriano's recent filing of separate complaints against Garcia and another prosecutor, to avoid suspicion of partiality. 2. Procedural History: Following Garcia's endorsement of the Palad case to the DOJ, Soriano filed a complaint against Garcia with the Ombudsman for violation of Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code (dereliction of duty) and Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Ombudsman dismissed Soriano's complaint against Garcia on October 3, 2002, finding no probable cause. The Ombudsman denied Soriano's motion for reconsideration on July 14, 2003. 3. The Petition: Soriano filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Ombudsman's dismissal orders. He argued that even if the complaint for dereliction of duty was premature, the complaint for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 should have been sustained, as Garcia's unilateral referral of the case to the DOJ constituted dereliction of duty and caused him undue injury through unwarranted delay. Soriano contended that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing his complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against City Prosecutor Ramon Garcia. Whether Garcia's referral of the preliminary investigation of the complaint against Mely Palad to the Department of Justice constituted a violation of Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether Garcia's referral of the preliminary investigation of the complaint against Mely Palad constituted a violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against City Prosecutor Ramon Garcia.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion: The Court reiterated its policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman's investigatory and prosecutorial powers, unless tainted with grave abuse of discretion. In this case, the petitioner failed to establish such grave abuse of discretion. The Ombudsman's dismissal of the complaint was based on its findings of lack of probable cause, which were discernible from the records. The Court found that the petitioner failed to prove the elements of the offenses charged against Garcia. On the alleged violation of Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code (Dereliction of Duty): The Court noted that the Ombudsman correctly pointed out that the violation of Article 208 requires that the crime committed by the law-violator must first be proved. Since the guilt of Ms. Palad was not yet established, the charge for dereliction of duty against Garcia was premature. Furthermore, the Ombudsman found that Garcia's referral of the case to the DOJ was to avoid suspicion of partiality and bias, which, while not a completely acceptable reason for disqualification, did not, in the absence of evidence of malice or ill will, constitute a violation of Article 208. On the alleged violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act): The Court emphasized that to justify an indictment under Section 3(e), there must be a showing of undue injury, which is interpreted as actual damage. The complainant must prove that such injury was caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference, and that the public officer acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. In this case, the petitioner claimed that the injury suffered was the delay in the resolution of his complaint against Palad. However, he failed to adduce evidence of actual loss or damage, relying only on assertion. The Court held that actual damages cannot be presumed and must be proven with competent evidence. Moreover, the Affidavit-Complaint lacked the allegation of unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference given to Palad, a basic element of the offense. Therefore, the Ombudsman's dismissal of this charge was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
The dismissal of a complaint for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 by the Ombudsman does not constitute grave abuse of discretion when the complainant fails to adduce evidence of actual loss or damage suffered by reason of the alleged delay in the resolution of a prior complaint, and when the respondent public officer's explanation for referring the case, though erroneous, is not shown to be motivated by malice or ill will.