Facts:
In January 1998, the Mayor Arturo A. Gallardo, Vice-Mayor Peter Melchor J. Arches, members of Sangguniang Bayan and the Budget Officer Ofelia Nacional of the Municipality of Bansalan, Davao del Sur, were charged with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The charge stemmed from a sworn letter-complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao by Atty. Victor dela Serna, representing the Public Health Workers (PHWs) of Bansalan. The complaint accused the petitioners of refusing to appropriate in the municipal budget the amounts for unpaid salary differential and magna carta benefits of the PHWs, resulting in undue injury to the complainants.
The case proceeded with the Ombudsman-Mindanao finding probable cause to indict the petitioners. An Information was thus filed with the Sandiganbayan. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a Motion for Reinvestigation, which the Sandiganbayan granted, leading to a recommendation by the Special Prosecutor to dismiss the case for lack of evidence. However, Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto disapproved this recommendation, prompting the petitioners to file a Motion to Quash the Information.
The Sandiganbayan denied the Motion to Quash, leading to the present petition before the Supreme Court, where petitioners argued that insufficient funds legitimized their failure to appropriate the demanded amounts and that the one-sentence disapproval by the Ombudsman was arbitrary. It was also contended that dismissing similar cases while prosecuting theirs violated their right to equal protection of the laws.
Issues:
1. Whether the facts charged do not constitute an offense.
2. Whether the accused were denied due process.
3. Whether the accused were not accorded equal protection of laws.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. It ruled that the averments in the Information sufficiently charged the offense, and due process was not violated because the Ombudsman had the authority to approve or disapprove the recommendation of the Special Prosecutor based on his assessment of probable cause. The Court explained that denial of equal protection of the laws was an invalid argument because the Ombudsman had discretion in prosecuting or dismissing cases based on the facts unique to each case. The Court also reasoned that good faith and insufficient funds were issues of defense that should be argued in a full trial rather than at the quashal stage.
Doctrine:
Established in this case is the doctrine that the Ombudsman has the discretion to determine whether there is probable cause for filing an Information and his decision to do so is not necessarily a denial of due process or equal protection of the laws. Similarly, the findings and recommendations of the Special Prosecutor are subject to the Ombudsman’s discretion.
Class Notes:
– Legal standing: The Ombudsman’s mandate allows him to determine probable cause for indictment, and his discretion is generally not subject to judicial review except in cases of grave abuse of discretion.
– Elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019: The crime requires that the public official caused undue injury to any party through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
– Interlocutory vs. final orders: Decisions which do not dispose of a case completely are interlocutory and are not the subject of a final appeal.
– Equal protection: Treatment under the law must be uniform among all persons in similar conditions, allowing for reasonable classification based on substantial differences.
Historical Background:
This case reflects the ongoing issues of local governance and corruption in the Philippines, where local government officials are often subjected to legal challenges concerning their administrative decisions, including the allocation of public funds. The role of the Ombudsman, as an independent body, is historically rooted in checking abuses by public officers and safeguarding the integrity of public service in the Philippines. This case reiterates the principle that the Ombudsman’s prosecutorial discretion, when exercised within its constitutional and statutory boundaries, is consistent with the due process and equal protection clauses. The decision reaffirms the judiciary’s deference to the Ombudsman’s mandate and elucidates the framework within which legal challenges to such prosecutorial decisions must be examined.
Leave a Reply