Agdeppa v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case stems from allegations of overpayment totaling P2,044,488.71 to Supra Construction for an NHA project. Iluminado L. Junia, Jr., then Group Manager for the Project Technical Services Group of the National Housing Authority (NHA), filed a complaint alleging that the overpayment was facilitated through dubious audit reports prepared by Rodolfo M. Agdeppa, a resident auditor from the Commission on Audit (COA), and endorsed by fellow resident auditor Ricardo Castillo. Junia claimed these actions prejudiced the government. Agdeppa, in turn, had initiated cases against Junia and other NHA officials related to the same project. Procedural History: Junia's complaint, docketed as OMB-0-99-1015, was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman. Agdeppa filed his counter-affidavit, denying the allegations. Simultaneously, Agdeppa had lodged a complaint with Senator Renato S. Cayetano regarding alleged irregularities by COA and Civil Service Commission officials, which was forwarded to the Ombudsman. Agdeppa expressed suspicion that the Ombudsman's office was being used for other purposes due to the perceived haste in handling Junia's complaint against him while his own letter remained unaddressed. The Ombudsman's office, through Graft Investigation Officer II Marydel B. Jarlos-Martin, issued orders for counter-affidavits and replies. Notably, Junia's initial complaint was not under oath, leading to an order for him to swear to it. Subsequently, an information was filed against Agdeppa and Castillo for violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, leading to a warrant of arrest. Meanwhile, Agdeppa filed a separate administrative complaint, OMB-MIL-CRIM-00-0470, against Jarlos-Martin, Emmanuel M. Laurezo, and Junia for alleged corrupt practices. This complaint was dismissed by the Office of the Ombudsman via a Resolution dated July 31, 2000, and a subsequent Order dated September 28, 2000, denying Agdeppa's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner Rodolfo M. Agdeppa filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Resolution and Order of the Office of the Ombudsman dismissing his complaint in OMB-MIL-CRIM-00-0470. Agdeppa alleged grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by the Ombudsman. His arguments included claims that the dismissal was based on a preliminary investigation that did not properly include all respondents, that the splitting of the cause of action in OMB-0-99-1015 was improper, that the respondents engaged in forum shopping, and that his constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases was violated. He also contended that the Ombudsman's office improperly tolerated the postponement of the resolution of OMB-0-99-1015 and that the dismissal of his complaint against public respondents Jarlos-Martin and Laurezo was erroneous, as was the exclusion of private respondent Junia from the investigation. The Supreme Court, however, found no merit in the petition, limiting its review to the dismissal of OMB-MIL-CRIM-00-0470 and affirming the Ombudsman's investigatory and prosecutorial powers, finding no clear demonstration of grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Agdeppa's complaint (OMB-MIL-CRIM-00-0470) against Jarlos-Martin, Laurezo, and Junia. Whether the exclusion of Junia from the Order dated June 6, 2000, in OMB-MIL-CRIM-00-0470, constituted a violation of procedural due process or indicated grave abuse of discretion. Whether the Resolution dated July 31, 2000, in OMB-MIL-CRIM-00-0470, was issued in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, specifically regarding the change in investigating officers. Whether Agdeppa's accusations against Jarlos-Martin, Laurezo, and Junia established probable cause for violations of Section 3(a), (e), (f), and (j) of Republic Act No. 3019. Whether Laurezo had the authority to administer the oath to Junia's complaint, and whether Agdeppa was denied due process by the Ombudsman's findings.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari. It found no merit in Agdeppa's claims of grave abuse of discretion by the Office of the Ombudsman. The Court affirmed the Ombudsman's Resolution dated July 31, 2000, and Order dated September 28, 2000, which dismissed Agdeppa's complaint in OMB-MIL-CRIM-00-0470 for lack of probable cause.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged grave abuse of discretion by the Office of the Ombudsman: The Court reiterated its policy of non-interference with the investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman, unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. Agdeppa failed to demonstrate such abuse, relying instead on allegations, suspicions, and surmises without independent or corroborating evidence. The Ombudsman's dismissal of the complaint was based on a valid exercise of discretion, finding no probable cause to charge Jarlos-Martin, Laurezo, and Junia with violations of R.A. No. 3019. On the exclusion of Junia from the Order dated June 6, 2000: The Court clarified that the exclusion of Junia from the order requiring counter-affidavits was an outright dismissal of the complaint against him for lack of merit, which is within the Ombudsman's discretionary power. The Ombudsman has the authority to dismiss a complaint outright if it finds it utterly devoid of merit, and this does not require a preliminary investigation. The Ombudsman's determination that Junia's participation was peripheral and secondary was a valid exercise of discretion. On the issuance of the Resolution by a different investigating officer: The Court held that the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman do not mandate that the same investigating officer must conduct and resolve the entire preliminary investigation. While ideally the same officer should do so, a change in investigating officers due to circumstances like promotion or transfer does not render the resolution erroneous or irregular, provided the new officer relies on the existing records and evidence. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties applies. On the lack of probable cause for violations of R.A. No. 3019: The Court found that Agdeppa's accusations against Jarlos-Martin, Laurezo, and Junia lacked the necessary elements to establish probable cause for violations of Section 3(a), (e), (f), and (j) of R.A. No. 3019. The Ombudsman correctly determined that Agdeppa's allegations were mere suspicions and conjectures, unsupported by direct or circumstantial evidence. The elements of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, gross inexcusable negligence, or the intent to gain pecuniary benefit were not sufficiently proven. On Laurezo's authority to administer the oath and due process: The Court found no merit in Agdeppa's argument that Laurezo lacked the authority to administer the oath to Junia's complaint. As an investigating officer of the Ombudsman, Laurezo possessed the power to administer oaths, and his certification enjoyed the presumption of regularity. The Court also noted that the right to a preliminary investigation is a substantive right of the respondent, not the complainant, and Agdeppa could not insist on a preliminary investigation when the complaint was dismissed outright for lack of merit. The Court also clarified that the complaint becoming sworn before an authorized official, regardless of whether it was Jarlos-Martin or Laurezo, did not alter its legal effect.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court generally adheres to a policy of non-interference with the investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Office of the Ombudsman, and will only intervene through a writ of certiorari if there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Mere allegations, suspicions, or surmises do not constitute sufficient evidence to establish grave abuse of discretion.