THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 201117, January 22, 2020
ROMEO A. BELTRAN AND DANILO G. SARMIENTO, PETITIONERS, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION), OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ASST. SPECIAL PROSECUTOR III JENNIFER AGUSTIN-SE, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, AND COMMISSION ON AUDIT REPRESENTED BY DANILO SISON, ROMEO DE GUZMAN, AND LUIS DIMOLOY (COA REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 02 TUGUEGARAO CITY, CAGAYAN), RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
The Ombudsman's and his or her Deputies' power of determining probable cause to charge an accused is an executive function. They must be given a wide latitude in performing this duty. Absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion, this Court will not disturb their determination of probable cause.
This Court resolves a Petition for Certiorari1 challenging the Dccision2 of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon (Office of the Deputy Ombudsman) and the Office of the Special Prosecutor's Order3 that allegedly upholds it. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman found Romeo A. Beltran (Beltran) guilty of serious dishonesty and ordered his dismissal from government service, and recommended that criminal charges be filed against him and Danilo G. Sarmiento (Sarmiento).
This case arose from a Complaint that the Commission on Audit filed before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman against the following: (1) Alfredo M. Castillo, Jr. (Mayor Castillo), then mayor of Alfonso Castañeda. Nueva Vizcaya; (2) Beltran, then its municipal engineer; and (3) KAICO 25 Realty and Development Corporation (KAICO), owned by Sonny L. Salba and represented by Sarmiento.
The Commission on Audit alleged that Mayor Castillo had entered into a P10,000,000.00-worth Contract Agreement with KAICO for the construction of the Bato-Abuyo Farm-to-Market Road in Alfonso Castañeda.4
Auditors from the Commission on Audit later observed that only 3.78% of the project was accomplished despite the entire P10,000,000.00 being disbursed and paid to KAICO.5 A breakdown of the project's deficiencies was revealed in a January 2, 2003 Inspection Report prepared by Danilo N. Sison (Sison), a technical audit specialist at the Commission on Audit.6
On November 3, 2003, Sison and the other auditors executed a Joint Affidavit, confirming that the project was certified by Beltran as 100% and was fully paid on July 31, 2002,7 when only 3.78% was accomplished. They recommended that the appropriate cases be filed against Mayor Castillo, Beltran, and KAICO's officers.8 Sison later submitted a Position Paper, reiterating the need to file criminal and administrative charges against them.9
For his part, Beltran insisted that he was not a disbursing officer and that he had never handled the project's funds. He added that he signed the Project Acceptance, which certifies that the project is 100% complete, based on what he saw and reported. He invoked the presumption of regularity in the discharge of official duties.10
To bolster his claim, Beltran pointed to the Findings and Observations of the Department of the Interior and Local Government Provincial Fact-Finding Team (Fact-Finding Team), indicating the project's progress.11 He also relied on the Certifications of Barangay Captains Rosie Sanchez (Barangay Captain Sanchez) of Barangay Batu and Milton P. Suaking (Barangay Captain Suaking) of Barangay Abuyo, dated November 6, 2003 and August 1, 2005, respectively.12 Both of them stated that the Batu-Abuyo Road was fully built and was being used by farmers as an alternative road.13
On January 21, 2010, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman rendered the assailed Decision,14 ruling that Beltran should be held administratively liable for certifying that the project was 100% complete when only 3.78% was accomplished at the time he signed the Project Acceptance.15
The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman found that Beltran's reliance on the barangay captains' Certifications was misplaced because they were issued much later than the Commission on Audit's Inspection Report. Barangay Captain Suaking's Certification only came 10 months after the inspection, and Sanchez's Certification two (2) years and seven (7) months after. To the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, these documents may not accurately reflect the condition of the project when the inspection was conducted.16
Moreover, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman found that the Certifications only contained general descriptions of the road, as compared to the Inspection Report, which contained more technical descriptions of the project's deficiencies.17
As to the Findings and Observations of the Fact-Finding Team, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman found that it did not indicate the percentage of the actual accomplished work as compared to the Inspection Report. It also noted that the Fact-Finding Team reported that "the road is already covered with vegetative growth for non-use and only few have the courage to pass through it."18
Hence, for Beltran failure to refute the claim that his certification in the Project Acceptance was false,19 the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman held that he committed fraud or falsification that caused undue injury or serious damage to Alfonso Castañeda worth P9,622,000.00. This amount represented the unaccomplished portion of the project.20
Accordingly, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman found Beltran guilty of serious dishonesty and dismissed him from government service. It also recommended that criminal charges for violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and falsification of public document under Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code be filed against Beltran and Sarmiento. However, the administrative charges against Sarmiento and Mayor Castillo were dismissed.21
Only Beltran moved for reconsideration.22
Upon the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman's Decision, two (2) Informations for the recommended violations were filed before the Sandiganbayan on July 28, 2011.23 Beltran and Sarmiento later received a Notice from the Sandiganbayan selling their arraignment. However, they manifested that a Motion for Reconsideration was pending before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman and prayed that the arraignment be postponed.24
Thus, the Sandiganbayan reset the arraignment and instructed the Office of the Special Prosecutor to comment on Beltran's Motion for Reconsideration.25
On February 1, 2011, the Office of the Special Prosecutor issued the assailed Order.26 It declared that the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman did not err when it gave credence to the Commission on Audit's Inspection Report over the Findings and Observations of the Fact-Finding Team and the barangay captains' Certifications.27
However, this Order did not contain a dispositive portion. Instead, it contained a prayer at the end, which read:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, there being no merit for the Motion For Reconsideration filed by Respondent Beltran, the Prosecution respectfully prays that the same be DENIED.Thinking that this Order was a denial of Beltran's Motion for Reconsideration, Beltran and Sarmiento filed before the Office of the Special Prosecutor a Manifestation and Motion29 praying that the Informations filed in the Sandiganbayan be withdrawn. They claimed that the filing of the informations was premature as they still had available remedies under the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman to question the finding of probable cause.30 Beltran and Sarmiento furnished the Sandiganbayan with a copy of this Manifestation and Motion.31 In view of this. the Sandiganbayan again deferred the arraignment.32
Other just and equitable relief under the law are likewise prayed for.28 (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.43 (Emphasis in the original)The Order was approved by then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales (Ombudsman Carpio Morales) on June 26, 2012, as shown on the last page of the ruling where her signature appears.44
SECTION 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and the result thereof.The Constitution docs not expressly provide the Office of the Ombudsman the power to prosecute cases in courts. Instead, it converted the Tanodbayan, which had prosecutorial powers, to the Office of the Special Prosecutor.95
SECTION 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties:
(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. (2) Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or employee of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as of any government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter, to perform and expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties. (3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith. (4) Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such limitations as may he provided by law, to furnish it with copies of documents relating to contracts or transactions entered into by his office involving the disbursement or use of public funds or properties, and report any irregularity to the Commission on Audit for appropriate action. (5) Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the discharge of its responsibilities, and to examine, if necessary, pertinent records and documents. (6) Publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so warrant and with due prudence. (7) Determine the causes or inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and corruption in the Government and make recommendations for their elimination and the observance of high standards or ethics and efficiency. (8) Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such functions or duties as may be provided
by law.
SECTION 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. - The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties:At the same time, the Office of the Special Prosecutor retained its power to conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal cases.
(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise or this primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of government, the investigation or such cases[.] (Emphasis supplied)
SECTION 11. Structural Organization. - The authority and responsibility for the exercise of the mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman and for the discharge of its powers and functions shall be vested in the Ombudsman, who shall have supervision and control of the said office.Thus, in its current form, the Office of the Special Prosecutor is a component of the Ot1ice of the Ombudsman, with both concurrently exercising prosecutorial powers. However, in exercising its functions, the Office of the Special Prosecutor shall be under the supervision and control of the Office of the Ombudsman and can only act upon its authority.96
.... (3) The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall be composed of the Special Prosecutor and his [or her] prosecution staff. The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall be an organic component or the Office of the Ombudsman and shall be under the supervision and control of the Ombudsman. (4) The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall, under the supervision and control and upon the authority of the Ombudsman, have the following powers: (a) To conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan; (b) To enter into plea bargaining agreements; and (c) To perform such other duties assigned to it by the Ombudsman.
It may appear that the Ombudsman's one-line note lacks any factual or evidentiary grounds as it did not set forth the same. The state of affairs, however. is that the Ombudsman's note stems from his [or her] review of the findings of fact reached by the investigating prosecutor. The Ombudsman, contrary to the investigating prosecutor's conclusion, was of the conviction that petitioners are probably guilty of the offense charged, and for this, he [or she] is not required to conduct an investigation anew. He [or she] is merely determining the propriety and correctness of the recommendation by the investigating prosecutor, i.e., whether probable cause actually exists or not, on the basis of the findings of fact of the latter. He [or she] may agree, fully or partly, or disagree completely with the investigating prosecutor. Whatever course or action that the Ombudsman may take, whether to approve or to disapprove the recommendation or the investigating prosecutor, is but an exercise of his [or her] discretionary powers based upon constitutional mandate.98What is important is the Ombudsman's action on the investigating officer's recommendations. Here, Ombudsman Carpio Morales' approval of the May 9, 2012 Order is shown through her signature appearing on the last page of the Order. This is a discretionary act on her part, to which this Court accords respect.
The reliance of respondent Beltran on the certifications issued by Rosie Sanches (sic) and Milton Suaking, and the Findings and Observations of the DILG Provincial Fact-Finding Team, is misplaced. It should be noted that the Inspection Report of the COA Audit Team was dated 02 January 2003. On the other hand, the certifications issued by Sanches (sic) and Luaking (sic) were dated 06 November 2003 and 01 August 2005. Thus, the statements of the said individuals may not accuratey reflect the condition of the road at the time the inspection was conducted. Further, the declaration of Sanchez and Luaking (sic) merely constitute general descriptions of the road. The said certifications are not sufficient to dispute the Inspection Report of the COA Audit Team, which possesses the expertise and authority to determine the technical specifications of construction projects.This Court does not find grave abuse of discretion in the determination of probable cause against petitioners. It is within the Office of the Ombudsman's mandate and discretion to weigh the different pieces of evidence presented before it during preliminary investigation. That is precisely what happened here: respondent Office of the Deputy Ombudsman considered all the relevant pieces of information before arriving at the conclusion that probable cause against petitioners exists. Petitioners failed to show any grave abuse of discretion on its part. This Court must, therefore, respect its findings.
Anent the findings of the DILG Provincial Fact-Finding Team, the same did not indicate the percentage of the actual accomplished work as compared to what was reported by the COA. As a matter of fact, contrary to the claim of the respondents that the road is being used by the locality, the Fact-Finding Team reported that "the road is already covered with vegetative growth for non-use and only few have the courage to pass through it".
Hence, respondent Beltran failed to rebut that his certification that the construction is 100% complete is false. Such fraud or falsification employed by said respondent caused undue injury or serious damage to the Municipality of Alfonso Castañeda in the amount of Nine Million Six Hundred Twenty Two Thousand Pesos (Php9,622,000.00). representing the amount paid for the unaccomplished portion of the project.107 (Citations omitted)
Whether the accused had been arraigned or not and whether it was due to a reinvestigation by the fiscal or a review by the Secretary of Justice whereby a motion to dismiss was submitted to the Court, the Court in the exercise of its discretion may grant the motion or deny it and require that the trial on the merits proceed for the proper determination of the case.In this case, the criminal action has already commenced. Jurisdiction over the case had been transferred to the Sandiganbayan upon the filing of the informations. Petitioners received notices of arraignment, and after several deferments. the Sandiganbayan proceeded to arraign them on January 21, 2013 considering the absence of any injunctive relief enjoining the arraignment.112
....
The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in Court, any disposition of the case as to its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence.111
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III | |
Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 3-35.
2 Id. at 36-47. The January 21, 2010 Decision was penned by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer I Maria Melinda S. Mananghaya and concurred in by Evaluation and Investigation Office-Bureau A Acting Director Joaquin F. Salazar. It was approved by Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Mark E. Jalandoni, as recommended by Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Victor C. Fernandez.
3 Id. at 48-65. The February 1, 2011 Order was signed by Assistant Special Prosecutor III Jennifer A. Agustin-Se.
4 Id. at 37.
5 Id.
6 Id. at 37-38.
7 Id. at 277.
8 Id. at 38.
9 Id. at 39.
10 Id. at 40.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 43.
14 Id. at 36-47.
15 Id. at 43.
16 Id. at 43-44.
17 Id. at 44.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Id. at 44-45.
21 Id. at 253 and 271.
22 Id. at 93-105.
23 Id. at 272.
24 Id. at 254
25 Id. at 273.
26 Id. at 48-65.
27 Id. at 55.
28 Id. at 64.
29 Id. at 109-112.
30 Id. at 111.
31 Id. at 112.
32 Id. at 113.
33 Id. at 114-118.
34 Id. at 254-255.
35 Id. at 151-155.
36 Id. at 152-153.
37 Id. at 153.
38 Id.
39 Id.
40 Id. at 3-35.
41 Id. at 30.
42 Id. at 217-223.
43 Id. at 223.
44 Id.
45 Id. at 196-216.
46 Id. at 228-239.
47 Id. at 243-244.
48 Id. at 251-270.
49 Id. at 271-283.
50 Id. at 258-259.
51 Id. at 259.
52 Id.
53 Id. at 259-260.
54 Id. at 260.
55 Id. at 260-261.
56 Id. at 261
57 Id. at 262.
58 Id. at 263.
59 Id. at 264.
60 Id. at 265.
61 Id.
62 Id.
63 Id. at 269.
64 Id. at 275.
65 Id.
66 Id.
67 Id.
68 Id.
69 Id. at 277.
70 437 Phil. 702 (2002) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
72 Id. at 280.
73 Id. at 281.
74 Irene R. Cortes, Redress of Grievances and the Philippine Ombudsman (Tanodbayan), 57 PHIL L.J. 1, 5-7 (1982).
75 Executive Order No. 318 (1950). See Irene R. Cortes, Redress of Grievances and the Philippine Ombudsman (Tanodbayan), 57 PHIL L.J. 1 (1982).
76 Executive Order No. 1 (1953). See Irene R. Cortes, Redress of Grievances and the Philippine Ombudsman (Tanodbayan), 57 PHIL L.J. 1 (1982).
77 Executive Order No. 1 (1953). See Irene R. Cortes, Redress of Grievances and the Philippine Ombudsman (Tanodbayan), 57 PHIL L.J. 1 (1982).
78 Executive Order No. 306 (1958), See Irene R. Cortes, Redress of Grievances and the Philippine Ombudsman (Tanodbayan), 57 PHIL L.J. 1 (1982).
79 Executive Order No. 306 (1958). See Irene R. Cortes, Redress of Grievances and the Philippine Ombudsman (Tanodbayan), 57 PHIL L.J. 1 (1982).
80 Executive Order No. 4 (1962). See Irene R. Cortes. Redress of Grievances and the Philippine Ombudsman (Tanodbayan), 57 PHIL L.J. 1 (1982).
81 Executive Order No. 4 (1966). See Irene R. Cortes. Redress of Grievances and the Philippine Ombudsman (Tanodbayan), 57 PHIL L.J. 1 (1982).
82 Irene R. Cortes, Redress of Grievances and the Philippine Ombudsman (Tanodbayan), 57 PHIL L.J. 6 (1982).
83 Id. at 7.
84 Republic Act No. 6028 (1969), sec. 2.
85 Republic Act No. 6028 (1969), sec. 3.
86 Republic Act No. 6028 (1969), sec. 12.
87 Republic Act No. 6028 (1969), sec. 14.
88 Irene R. Cortes, Redress of Grievances and the Philippine Ombudsman (Tanodbayan), 57 PHIL L.J. 1, 7 (1982).
89 Id. at 8.
90 Presidential Decree No. 1487 (1978), sec. 14.
91 Presidential Decree No. 1607 (1978). sec. 17. See Presidential Decree No. 1486 (1978), sec. 12; Irene R. Cortes, Redress of Grievances and the Philippine Ombudsman (Tanodbayan), 57 PHIL L.J. 1, 9 (1982).
92 Presidential Decree No. 1607 (1978), secs. 17 and 19. See Presidential Decree No. 1486 (1978), sec. 12; Irene R.Cortes, Redress of Grievances and the Philippine Ombudsman (Tanodbayan), 57 PHIL L.J. 1, 9 (1982).
93 Presidential Decree No. 1607 (1978), sec. 17.
94 Presidential Decree No. 1630 (1979) , secs. 10(e) to (f) and 18.
95 CONST., art. XI, sec. 7. See Fxecutive Order No. 243 (1987) and Executive Order No. 244 (1987).
96Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, 243 Phil. 988, 992 (1988) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
97 518 Phil. 464 (2006) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, First Division].
98 Id. at 476-477 citing Gallardo v. People, 496 Phil. 381 (2005) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Second Division].
99Binay v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 213957-58, August 7, 2019, [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
100Dichaves v. Ombudsman, 802 Phil. 564, 589 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
101 Id. at 589-590.
102 Id. at 589.
103 Id. at 590.
104 Id. at 591.
105Binay v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 213957-58, August 7, 2019. [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
106 Id., citing Reyes v. Ombudsman, 810 Phil. 106 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
107Rollo, pp. 43-45.
108 776 Phil. 623 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
109 Id. at 649.
110 Id. at 650 citing Crespo v. Mogul, 235 Phil. 465, 474-476 (1987) [J. Gancayco, En Banc].
111 Id. at 650-651
112Rollo, pp. 271-272
113See De Lima v. Reyes, 776 Phil. 623, 652-653 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].