Tigas v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Municipality of Samal, Bataan, purchased lots for a public market. The Sangguniang Bayan (SB) members received ₱2,923,000 for the seller but only gave ₱2,500,000, deducting ₱90,000 for capital gains tax, resulting in an unaccounted amount of ₱513,000. Petitioner Rolando Z. Tigas, the municipal mayor, signed the Deed of Conditional Sale prior to the SB Resolution accepting the offer to sell, and allegedly influenced the provincial assessor to appraise the lot at a higher rate than the Philippine National Bank's appraisal. Procedural History: The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against petitioner and the SB members for violations of Section 3(g) and (i) of R.A. 3019. The Ombudsman recommended the filing of an Information for violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. 3019 against petitioner and the SB members, and Section 3(i) against the SB members alone. The Sandiganbayan denied petitioner's motion to quash the Information and ordered his suspension pendente lite. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for certiorari and prohibition, assailing the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause and the Sandiganbayan's denial of his motion to quash and the order of suspension pendente lite. He alleged grave abuse of discretion and prejudice on the part of the Ombudsman, citing his indictment for an offense different from what he was charged with, a finding of probable cause despite a dearth of evidence, and the Ombudsman's brother losing to him in a mayoralty race.
Issue(s)
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion and acted with manifest partiality in finding probable cause against petitioner. Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in refusing to quash the Information and in imposing a suspension pendente lite on petitioner.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit. It affirmed the Resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan. The Court held that a Rule 65 petition is an inappropriate remedy to question the Sandiganbayan's refusal to quash an information and its imposition of suspension pendente lite, as these matters should be resolved in the main case. The Court also found no grave abuse of discretion or bias on the part of the Ombudsman, as the alleged irregularities did not constitute irregularities in the first place, and the imputation of bias was not supported by convincing proof.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and manifest partiality by the Office of the Ombudsman: The Court held that the petitioner's claim of grave abuse of discretion and prejudice was unsubstantiated. Firstly, it is not irregular to indict a respondent for an offense different from what was initially charged if the evidence developed during the preliminary investigation warrants it, citing Galario v. Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao). Secondly, the Ombudsman's exercise of its prerogative in finding probable cause was not whimsical or arbitrary, as it was supported by documentary evidence and the findings of the NBI and Sandiganbayan; absolute certainty is not required for probable cause, only opinion and reasonable belief. Any factual defenses must be raised in a full-blown trial, not in a certiorari petition. Thirdly, the petitioner's election victory over the Ombudsman's brother does not, by itself, establish bias or partiality, as kinship alone is insufficient without convincing proof, and the presumption of regularity in official duty prevails. The Court noted that the petitioner raised the issue of bias belatedly, weakening his claim. On the issue of the Sandiganbayan's grave abuse of discretion in refusing to quash the Information and imposing suspension pendente lite: The Court reiterated that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an improper remedy to assail the Sandiganbayan's denial of a motion to quash an information or its order of suspension pendente lite. These matters are procedural incidents that should be addressed and resolved within the main criminal case itself. The proper recourse for the petitioner was to continue with the proceedings in due course rather than filing a certiorari petition. The OSG correctly argued that the remedy available was not a special civil action for certiorari but the continuation of the case.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an improper remedy to question the Sandiganbayan's refusal to quash an information or its imposition of suspension pendente lite; such matters are to be threshed out in the main case. Furthermore, allegations of bias against the Ombudsman must be supported by convincing proof, and mere kinship or perceived irregularities in the indictment process do not automatically establish prejudice.