Bonghanoy v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the alleged violation of Presidential Decree No. 449, as amended by PD 1602 (the "Cockfighting Law of 1974"). This arose from the authorization and holding of a three-day cockfighting event on January 28, 29, and 30, 2014, at the Union Cultural Sports Center in Ubay, Bohol. Petitioners, including the then Municipal Mayor, Vice Mayor, councilors, and barangay officials, were accused of allowing this event to take place in an unlicensed cockpit, purportedly in violation of the law. Procedural History: Following a complaint filed by a private citizen, the Office of the Ombudsman investigated the matter. The Ombudsman subsequently issued a Resolution on October 11, 2016, finding probable cause to indict the petitioners for violation of PD 449. A Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioners was denied by the Ombudsman in an Order dated January 17, 2017. The Ombudsman then filed an Information with the Sandiganbayan on April 17, 2017, leading to the issuance of warrants of arrest. The petitioners then filed separate petitions for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which were later consolidated. The Petition: The consolidated petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court were filed by the petitioners assailing the Resolution and Order of the Ombudsman. They argued that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, petitioners contended that the applicable provision of law was Section 5(e) of PD 449, which permits cockfighting for the entertainment of tourists and balikbayans in locations other than licensed cockpits, rather than Section 5(d) which was applied by the Ombudsman. They asserted that the primary purpose of the event was to entertain balikbayans and tourists, and that the venue, the Union Cultural Sports Center, could be considered a playground or park as allowed under Section 5(e).
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in finding probable cause for violation of PD 449 against the petitioners. Whether Section 5(d) or Section 5(e) of PD 449 is the applicable provision in the case.
Ruling
The consolidated petitions for certiorari are GRANTED. The assailed Resolution dated October 11, 2016, and the Order dated January 17, 2017, issued by the Office of the Ombudsman are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court is made PERMANENT, and the respondent Ombudsman is DIRECTED to immediately file the necessary pleading for the WITHDRAWAL of the Information in Criminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-0753 against petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction: The Court finds that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. While the Court generally respects the Ombudsman's findings on probable cause, it will intervene when there is a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic exercise of judgment. In this case, the Ombudsman's misapplication of the law, specifically Section 5(d) instead of Section 5(e) of PD 449, constitutes such grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that the circumstances of the case clearly aligned with the provisions of Section 5(e), which permits cockfighting for the entertainment of tourists and "balikbayans" under certain conditions, thereby negating the finding of probable cause under Section 5(d). On whether Section 5(d) or Section 5(e) of PD 449 is applicable: The Court ruled that Section 5(e) of PD 449 is the applicable provision. Section 5(d) allows cockfighting only in licensed cockpits during Sundays, legal holidays, and local fiestas for not more than three days, or during fairs/carnivals under specific conditions, and prohibits it within the month of a local fiesta. Section 5(e), however, allows cockfighting for the entertainment of foreign dignitaries, tourists, or "balikbayans" upon resolution of the local council and approval of the PNP, to be held in licensed cockpits or in playgrounds or parks, for only one time, not exceeding three days, within a year. The Court emphasized that Section 5(e) does not contain the prohibition against holding such events within the month of a local fiesta, unlike Section 5(d). The resolutions passed by the Sangguniang Bayan explicitly mentioned the entertainment of "balikbayans" and tourists as a reason, and the Special Permit issued by the PNP also cited this purpose, along with the town fiesta. The fact that the event occurred within the month of the fiesta does not violate Section 5(e), as this prohibition is specific to Section 5(d)'s conditions. Furthermore, Section 5(e) allows such events to be held in playgrounds or parks, and the Union Cultural and Sports Center, a gymnasium, could be considered within this category, especially since no licensed cockpit existed in the municipality.
Main Doctrine
The Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in finding probable cause for violation of Section 5(d) of PD 449, as amended, when the facts clearly fall under Section 5(e) of the same decree, which allows cockfighting for the entertainment of tourists and "balikbayans" in places other than licensed cockpits, even if within the month of a local fiesta.