Busuego v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Rosa S. Busuego filed a complaint against her husband, Alfredo Romulo A. Busuego, for Concubinage, violation of RA 9262, and Grave Threats. Rosa alleged marital discord since 1983, Alfredo's infidelity, and a specific incident in 1985 where Alfredo pointed a gun at her. She also claimed Alfredo had mistresses, Emy Sia and Julie de Leon, cohabiting with him and staying in the conjugal dwelling. Supporting affidavits from their son Robert and househelpers Melissa and Liza Diambangan corroborated these allegations, detailing Sia's cohabitation and de Leon's overnight stays in the conjugal room. Alfredo denied the accusations, claiming Rosa's allegations were to support a legal separation suit and that he was rarely home. He also argued that Rosa condoned his alleged infidelities and that his alleged mistresses were not impleaded as required by Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code. Procedural History: The Ombudsman, after a clarificatory hearing, directed Rosa to submit the addresses of Sia and de Leon to implead them as respondents for concubinage. Sia and de Leon did not submit counter-affidavits. The Ombudsman issued a Resolution finding probable cause to indict Alfredo and Sia for Concubinage, but dismissed the charges against de Leon, for Grave Threats, and for violation of RA 9262. Alfredo filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman. The Petition: Petitioner Alfredo Romulo A. Busuego sought to annul the Ombudsman's Resolution and Order, arguing that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion by: (1) railroaded inclusion of Sia and de Leon as respondents; (2) failing to refer the complaint to the DOJ as concubinage was not related to his office; (3) glossing over Rosa's condonation of his alleged concubinage; (4) not considering Liza Diambangan's affidavit of recantation; and (5) finding probable cause to indict him and Sia for concubinage.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in the inclusion of Emy Sia and Julie de Leon as party-respondents. Whether the Ombudsman erred in not referring the case to the Department of Justice. Whether Rosa S. Busuego condoned Alfredo Romulo A. Busuego's alleged concubinage. Whether the affidavit of recantation of Liza S. Diambangan should have been considered. Whether there was probable cause to indict Alfredo Romulo A. Busuego and Emy Sia for concubinage.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Resolutions of the Ombudsman dated April 17, 2009, and October 11, 2010, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the inclusion of Sia and de Leon as party-respondents: The Court held that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Ombudsman followed its Rules of Procedure by facilitating the amendment of the complaint to cure the defect pointed out by Alfredo, specifically the failure to implead the alleged concubines as required by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code. Dismissing the complaint on such a procedural infirmity would be superfluous, as Rosa could simply re-file the case, given that res judicata does not apply at the preliminary investigation stage. The Ombudsman's action was aimed at obviating further proceedings and clarifying matters, consistent with its procedural rules allowing for clarificatory hearings and amendment of pleadings. On the referral to the Department of Justice: The Court reiterated that the Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction with the DOJ to investigate offenses committed by public officers, regardless of whether the offense is related to their office. The OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001 clarifies that offenses not in relation to office, cognizable by regular courts, shall generally be investigated by the Provincial/City Prosecutor, but the Ombudsman retains the power to assert its primary jurisdiction at any stage. In this case, the Ombudsman chose to exercise its jurisdiction, and its decision to proceed with the preliminary investigation was within its authority, not requiring mandatory referral to the DOJ. On condonation of concubinage: The Court found no condonation. While Rosa admitted to knowing of Alfredo's womanizing and believing he had stopped, this did not amount to condonation of the specific acts of concubinage with Sia and de Leon, particularly cohabiting in the conjugal dwelling. Rosa's annual visits to Davao City were not construed as acquiescence to Alfredo's illicit relations. The Court emphasized that condonation requires forgiveness of a marital offense, and Rosa's continued cohabitation, under the belief of improvement, did not signify such forgiveness of the alleged concubinage. On the affidavit of recantation: The Court held that affidavits of recantation are generally viewed with disfavor and are unreliable. Retractions do not automatically discredit prior testimonies. The Court noted that Liza Diambangan's testimony merely corroborated the consistent accounts of Robert and Melissa Diambangan. Therefore, the Ombudsman was not compelled to give significant weight to the recantation, especially when other corroborating evidence existed. On the finding of probable cause for concubinage: The Court affirmed the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause. Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code defines concubinage through specific acts, including keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling. The testimonies of Robert and the househelpers, Melissa and Liza Diambangan, indicated that Alfredo kept Sia in the conjugal dwelling, where she even stayed in the conjugal room. Alfredo's explanation that Sia stayed in the maid's quarters and was not his mistress was considered a matter of defense to be raised in court, as the affidavits presented established a prima facie case for concubinage.
Main Doctrine
The Ombudsman has full discretionary authority in the determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation, and judicial review is limited to determining grave abuse of discretion. The Ombudsman may facilitate the amendment of a complaint to cure procedural defects, and its jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officers is concurrent with the DOJ, allowing it to assert primary jurisdiction.