Dalisay v. Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Moises De Guia Dalisay, Jr. (petitioner) filed a complaint against Atty. Dexter Rey T. Sumaoy (private respondent), the City Administrator of Iligan City. Petitioner alleged that private respondent appeared as private counsel for John Philip Aragon Burlado in a libel case on August 1 and August 14, 2017, using a government vehicle in violation of Administrative Order No. 239, Series of 2008. Petitioner also alleged that private respondent falsified his Daily Time Record (DTR) for August 2017 by making it appear he worked full-time on those dates. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) dismissed both the criminal and administrative charges for insufficiency of evidence in a Joint Resolution dated May 16, 2019. The Ombudsman denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration in a Joint Order dated October 16, 2020. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing only the dismissal of the criminal charges for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and Article 171 of the RPC.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in not finding probable cause to charge private respondent with violations of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and Article 171 of the RPC.
Ruling
The Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED. The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman in dismissing the criminal charges against the private respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion: The Court reiterated that it generally does not interfere with the Ombudsman's findings on probable cause, as this is an executive function. However, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is allowed if the Ombudsman's act is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, meaning it was capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or amounted to a virtual refusal to perform a duty. In this case, the petitioner failed to prove such grave abuse of discretion. The Ombudsman's determination that the private respondent's travels and appearance as counsel were duly approved by Mayor Regencia, and thus considered official and legal, was supported by evidence. The Court upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. Therefore, the private respondent could not be faulted for following the Mayor's order in good faith, negating the charge of falsification of his DTR. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to prove that the private respondent caused undue injury to the government or gave unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference, which are elements of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The Ombudsman considered and weighed all the evidence, and its judgment was not capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary. Any error in the evaluation of evidence by the Ombudsman is merely an error of judgment, not correctible by certiorari. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to protect innocent persons from hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecution, and the Ombudsman has the discretion to dismiss a complaint if there is insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case or probable cause.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's findings as to whether probable cause exists, as this is an executive function, unless such findings are tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail such dismissals, but the petitioner must prove that the Ombudsman's exercise of power was capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or amounted to a virtual refusal to perform a duty.