VADM. MARIANO J. DUMANGCAS, JR., PETITIONER, VS. HON. SIMEON V. MARCELO, OMBUDSMAN, DENNIS M. VILLAIGNACIO, SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, ROBERT E. KALLOS, DEPUTY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, HUMP…

Dumangcas versus Marcelo

The Case

This is a special civil action for certiorari brought by Vice Admiral Mariano Dumangcas, Junior against the Ombudsman, the Special Prosecutor, and the Deputy Special Prosecutors of the Office of the Special Prosecutor. The petitioner asks the Supreme Court to annul the Ombudsman's orders affirming the finding of probable cause against him and directing the filing of criminal informations before the Sandiganbayan. The case matters because it is a clean illustration of the deference the courts give to the Ombudsman's investigatory and prosecutory discretion, and of what a petitioner must show to overcome that deference: not mere disagreement, but grave abuse of discretion.

Procedural History

The matter began with special audits by the Commission on Audit of the Headquarters of the Philippine Navy, which produced two audit reports. Complaints were filed before the Office of the Ombudsman. The Resident Ombudsman for the Department of National Defense conducted a preliminary investigation and recommended a further preliminary investigation by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military. That office conducted the preliminary investigation and recommended dismissal. On review, the Office of the Special Prosecutor recommended that the dismissal be set aside and that it be allowed to conduct a preliminary investigation and reinvestigation, and the Ombudsman approved. After reinvestigation, the Special Prosecutor recommended the indictment of the petitioner, among others, and the Ombudsman approved, so informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan.

The petitioner moved for reconsideration or reinvestigation before the Sandiganbayan, which granted the motion. A Special Prosecution Officer then recommended dismissal of the cases. Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo disapproved that recommendation and affirmed the earlier memorandum in full. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The petitioner then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 65, and the Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

Facts

The Commission on Audit conducted special audits of the Philippine Navy and embodied its findings in two reports. The first, SAO Report No. 92-128, covered transactions for a period in 1991 and 1992. The second, SAO Report No. 94-98, covered selected procurements made in 1990 and 1991 and paid in 1992 and 1993. The second report listed numerous findings, among them funds obligated in 1984 and 1985 that were used to pay later transactions instead of being reverted to the unappropriated surplus of the General Fund, purchases made through emergency mode without public bidding, unaccounted medicines and medical supplies, and construction materials that could not be accounted for.

The Resident Ombudsman for the Department of National Defense reviewed the findings and recommended a further preliminary investigation on several of them. That investigation was docketed as OMB-4-97-0965 and was conducted by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military, which recommended dismissal. On review, the Office of the Special Prosecutor recommended that the dismissal be set aside and that it be allowed to reinvestigate, and the Ombudsman approved.

After reinvestigation, the Special Prosecutor recommended that the petitioner, among other respondents, be indicted for many counts of violation of the anti-graft law, of malversation of public funds through falsification, and of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials. The Ombudsman approved, and informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan. When the Sandiganbayan granted the petitioner's motion for reinvestigation, a Special Prosecution Officer recommended dismissal, but Ombudsman Marcelo disapproved and affirmed the earlier recommendation in full. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in setting aside the recommendation of the Special Prosecution Officer to dismiss the charges against the petitioner.
• Whether or not the Ombudsman's resolution of the motion for reconsideration by a marginal note, without stating the facts and the law on which it is based, violated the petitioner's right to due process.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the constitutional grant of investigatory and prosecutory powers to the Office of the Ombudsman, which the Court describes as the source of the discretion it declines to disturb. The Court states the governing rule on certiorari in these terms:

Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment on the part of public officer concerned which is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an invasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.

This is the standard the petitioner had to meet, and the Court measures the Ombudsman's orders against it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioner's premise was mistaken. He assumed that SAO Report No. 92-128 was the basis of the charges against him, and argued that his exculpation in earlier proceedings based on that report should benefit him here. The Court examined the records and found that the subject of the proceedings was SAO Report No. 94-98, not SAO Report No. 92-128. The memorandum that triggered the investigation expressly stated that the first audit report was the subject of an earlier memorandum, and that the instant memorandum pertained to the second audit report. The reinvestigation memorandum likewise referred unequivocally to SAO Report No. 94-98, and the transactions it cited corresponded to findings in that report. The Court also found no admission by the Commission on Audit that its auditors had made a mistake; the reply relied upon merely excluded one official from the list of persons responsible. Nor was it true that the earlier case had been dismissed, since the Ombudsman had disapproved the recommended dismissal.

On the second issue, the Court held that the marginal note deserved scant consideration. The Ombudsman is not required to conduct an investigation anew; he is merely determining the propriety and correctness of the investigating prosecutor's recommendation on the basis of the latter's findings of fact. He may agree fully, agree partly, or disagree completely, and whatever course he takes is an exercise of his discretionary powers under the Constitution. A one-line note is not, by itself, a sufficient basis to attribute arbitrariness or caprice. The Court stressed that it has invariably refrained from interfering with the Ombudsman's discretion in the conduct of preliminary investigation absent a clear case of grave abuse of discretion, a rule grounded on respect for the constitutional powers of the office and on practicality, lest the courts be swamped by innumerable petitions. Finding that the Ombudsman's orders were based on the evidence in the records, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion.

Doctrine

A petition for certiorari against the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause succeeds only on a showing of grave abuse of discretion, which is the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction, so patent and gross as to amount to an invasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. The courts do not interfere with the Ombudsman's discretion in the conduct of preliminary investigation absent such a clear case. The Ombudsman, in reviewing the investigating prosecutor's recommendation, need not conduct an investigation anew; he evaluates the propriety and correctness of that recommendation on the basis of the prosecutor's findings of fact, and he may agree fully, agree partly, or disagree completely. A terse or one-line resolution by the Ombudsman is not, without more, a denial of due process or proof of arbitrariness, so long as it rests on the evidence in the records.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and the Ombudsman's orders finding probable cause against the petitioner were left standing.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the courts will not interfere with the Ombudsman's discretion in preliminary investigation absent a clear case of grave abuse of discretion. Examiners use this case to test the standard for grave abuse of discretion and the deference owed to the Ombudsman's probable-cause determination, including the validity of a terse or marginal-note resolution.