Dela Cruz v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Cesar J. Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz), an Assistant City Prosecutor, was assigned to conduct an inquest investigation of a homicide case involving several children in conflict with the law (CICLs). The victim was the son of Lilia M. Abequibel (Abequibel). An amicable settlement was entered into, wherein the guardians of the CICLs would pay monetary obligations to Abequibel, and in return, she would no longer pursue the criminal case. Dela Cruz recommended the dismissal of the cases against some CICLs after their guardians paid Abequibel and she executed affidavits of desistance. Abequibel later filed a complaint alleging that Dela Cruz received portions of the settlement amounts paid by the guardians, amounting to PHP 21,500.00, as his share. Procedural History: The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) investigated the complaint and found that Dela Cruz intervened in the amicable settlement. The Department of Justice (DOJ) referred the findings to the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman). The Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the Ombudsman filed a criminal complaint against Dela Cruz for violations of RA 3019 and RA 6713, and an administrative complaint for Grave Misconduct. Initially, the Ombudsman issued a Resolution dated July 26, 2018, finding probable cause to indict Dela Cruz for three counts of violation of Section 7(d) of RA 6713, but dismissed charges for violations of RA 3019. Dela Cruz filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the Ombudsman granted in an Order dated November 27, 2019, reversing its earlier resolution and dismissing all charges. However, the Ombudsman subsequently issued an Order dated February 13, 2020, reversing its November 27, 2019 Order and reinstating its July 26, 2018 Resolution, finding probable cause to indict Dela Cruz for three counts of violation of Section 7(d) of RA 6713. The Petition: Dela Cruz filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the February 13, 2020 Order of the Ombudsman. He argued that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing its November 27, 2019 Order, which had allegedly become final and executory, invoking the doctrine of finality of judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the February 13, 2020 Order, reversing its November 27, 2019 Order. Whether the doctrine of finality of judgment applies to the Ombudsman's resolution in a preliminary investigation.
Ruling
The Petition is bereft of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the Order dated February 13, 2020, of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the Ombudsman's power to reconsider rulings: The Supreme Court reiterated that the Office of the Ombudsman has wide latitude to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of public officers. While courts generally adopt a policy of non-interference, they may review the Ombudsman's acts if there is grave abuse of discretion, which implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. The Ombudsman's determination of probable cause is a factual matter and is entitled to great respect. In this case, the Ombudsman's conflicting orders stemmed from its reconsideration of its earlier resolution. The Court found that the Ombudsman is not precluded from ordering another review of a complaint or revoking/altering the rulings of a predecessor, as this is consistent with its independence as protector of the people and prosecutor to ensure accountability. The Ombudsman's power to reinvestigate or reconsider its earlier rulings is within its jurisdiction, and new matters or evidence are not prerequisites for such reinvestigation. On the applicability of the doctrine of finality of judgment to preliminary investigations: The Supreme Court clarified that the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, which states that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, cannot be applied to resolutions of preliminary investigations. Preliminary investigations are purely administrative functions, not judicial or quasi-judicial. They do not constitute a valid and final judgment on the merits of the case. Therefore, the dismissal of a complaint on preliminary investigation does not preclude the Ombudsman from reconsidering its findings or ordering a reinvestigation. The provisions on finality and execution of decisions in administrative cases under the Ombudsman Rules do not apply to criminal cases. The remedy for an aggrieved party from a resolution of the Ombudsman finding the presence or absence of probable cause in criminal cases is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court.
Main Doctrine
The Ombudsman has the power to reinvestigate or reconsider its earlier rulings, even if a motion for reconsideration was previously granted, as the determination of probable cause in preliminary investigations does not constitute a final judgment. The doctrine of finality of judgment does not apply to resolutions on preliminary investigations.