GOVERNOR AMOR D. DELOSO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. MANUEL C. DOMINGO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON AND PC/INP/CIS, RESPONDENTS.

By this petition for certiorari and prohibition Governor Amor D. Deloso of Zambales seeks to stop respondent Manuel C. Domingo, Deputy
Ombudsman for Luzon, from conducting a preliminary
investigation of the charge against him of multiple murder
in IBP Case No. OSP-88-01770, entitled “PC/INP/CIS vs. Governor Amor Deloso,” on the grounds
that:

1. the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to
investigate the murder charge against the petitioner for its jurisdiction is
confined to the investigation only of acts or omissions that are connected with
the performance of his duties as governor; and

2.  for
the same reason, the Tanodbayan (Special Prosecutor)
has no jurisdiction to prosecute the murder case against the petitioner.

Upon receipt of the
petition, the Court issued a temporary restraining order on November 7, 1989 (p. 49, Rollo).

The case began in the evening of April 22, 1988, when Governor Deloso
attended a basketball victory party in Cabangan, Zambales.  From the
party, he proceeded to a pre-wedding celebration in Danacbunga,
Botolan, Zambales.
 He left Danacbunga
at 1:30 A.M., April 23, 1988, on board his service car, and
accompanied by his security force of military/police/civilian escorts on board
two other motor vehicles.

While travelling on the barangay road a few kilometers from the venue of the
pre-wedding celebration, the convoy of three (3) motor vehicles, with the governor’s car in the middle,
was allegedly ambushed.  Governor Deloso jumped out of his car and took cover behind it.  During a lull in the shooting, he was
allegedly rushed home by his
official staff.  Later, he learned that
three supposed ambushers – Patrolman Alberto
Dullas, Jr., Don Dullas,
and Edgar Vinco, Jr. – were killed.  His own group
suffered no casualties.

Based, however, on the testimonies of eyewitnesses, the PC/INP/CIS
investigators reported that the Governor’s group was not ambushed, but was the
ambusher.  The report stated:

“This case was prefaced by the report of Governor Amor Deloso of Zambales that on the morning of April 23, 1988, at about 1:30 o’clock in the morning, he and his escorts were ambushed by the group
of Pat. Alberto Dullas, Jr. along
the Provincial Road of Danacbunga, Botolan,
Zambales. 
However, in the course of the investigation, it was established, through
the testimonies of eyewitnesses, that it was the group of Pat. Dullas, Don Dullas and Edgar Vinco, Jr., then
riding in a Toyota Corolla car with Plate No. CAG 419, who were ambushed
by the group of Governor Deloso and his escorts,
numbering more or less fifteen (15).  Initial witnesses positively identified the
military/police escorts of Governor Deloso as CIC Pacifico
Uy, CIC Leonito Bandala PC, Cpl Cesar Madoh PC,
Cpl Elpidio Manding PC, Pat
Pedro Dolojan INP and Pat Florante
Dimaguibo INP. 
The above-named escorts were already charged of Multiple Murder before
the Regional Staff Judge Advocate (RSJA), Regional Command (RECOM) No. 3, on May 5, 1988, pursuant to PD 1850.  Said witnesses further identified the
civilian escorts/companions of Governor Deloso at the
time of the incident as Eto Epan, Dennis Reyes, Arthur Menes
and Jaime Detona, et al., who were, likewise, charged
of the same offense before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Zambales on May 6,
1988, docketed under I.S. No.
88-100-1.

“Follow-up investigation of this case further established the
identities of the other military/police escorts of Governor Deloso
who were also implicated in the
said shooting incident, namely:  Pat Warlito Quinto, Mario Dial, Jr., Crisostomo Diomino, Jr., Sarito Dedicatoria, Ernesto Isidoro, Delfin Deliquina, Ramon Pangilinan, Alex
de Leon and Carlos Yabut.  Consequently, these personalities had already
been included as respondents in
the original complaint earlier filed with RSJA, Recom
3, on June 27, 1988.

“Relevantly, the testimonies of additional witnesses,
particularly those of the spouses Honorio and Araceli Dullas
strongly inculpated Governor Amor Deloso
of Zambales in the commission of the crime.  On the other hand, Governor Deloso, when invited to give his version of the incident,
opted instead in submitting a nineteen (19) page photocopy of his letter dated May 30, 1988 to Justice Secretary Sedfrey Ordonez.” (pp. 63-64, Rollo.)

The military servicemen in the Governor’s security force were
charged with murder in the Judge Advocate General’s office, while his civilian
security men were investigated by the Provincial Fiscal of Zambales.  The Governor was charged with multiple murder before the Special Prosecutor, Raul M. Gonzales, who,
without a referral from the Ombudsman, supposedly handpicked prosecutor Juan Templonuevo to conduct the preliminary investigation of the
case.

On February 20, 1989, Governor Deloso
filed a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that:

1) The Office of the Special Prosecutor has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
case;

2) The said office is
without authority to conduct the preliminary investigation of the case;
and

3) The preliminary investigation of Governor Deloso was prohibited by
law in view of the Barangay Elections scheduled on 28 March 1989.

Albeit reluctantly, it may be imagined, Special Prosecutor
Gonzales referred the case to the Ombudsman for preliminary investigation.

On June 19, 1989, respondent Manuel C. Domingo, Deputy Ombudsman
for Luzon, issued an order denying Governor Deloso’s
motion to dismiss because “the Constitution empowers the Ombudsman to
investigate any act or omission of any public official x x
x without any qualification that said act or omission
must have been committed or incurred in relation to his office.” (p. 8, Rollo.)

After the denial of his motion for reconsideration, Governor Deloso filed this petition for certiorari,
reiterating the grounds of his motion to dismiss.

After careful consideration, the Court finds the petition to be
without merit.

Sections 12 and 13, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution provide:

“SEC. 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.”

“SEC. 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, employees, office or agency, when
such act or omission appears to be
illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.

“xxx                    xxx                   xxx”

(Underscoring supplied; pp. 9-10, Rollo.)

The petitioner admits that “the office of the Ombudsman was
created under the authority of the Constitution and was mandated to act as a
champion of the citizens, the watchdog of the people, the official critic of public officials and the
government mobilizer.” (p. 9, Rollo.) But he theorizes that “the framers of
our Constitution x x x
intended to limit the powers of the Ombudsman to crimes related to or connected
with an official’s discharge of his public functions.” (p.
15, Rollo.) Hence, the lone issue presented by
the petition is whether or not
the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate the charge of multiple murder allegedly committed by the petitioner as provincial
governor.  The answer is yes.

As protector of the
people, the office of the Ombudsman has the power, function and duty “to
act promptly on complaints filed in any
form or manner against public officials”
(Sec. 12) and to “investigate x x x any act or omission of any public official x x x when such act or omission appears to be illegal,
unjust, improper or inefficient.” (Sec. 13[1].)
The Ombudsman is also empowered to “direct the officer concerned,” in
this case the Special Prosecutor, “to take appropriate action against a public official x x
x and to recommend his prosecution” (Sec.
13[3]).

The clause “any [illegal] act or omission of any public
official” is broad enough to embrace any crime committed by a public
official.  The law does not qualify the
nature of the illegal act or omission of the public official or employee that
the Ombudsman may investigate.  It does
not require that the act or
omission be related to, or be connected with, or arise from, the performance of
official duty.  Since the law does not
distinguish, neither should we.

The reason for the creation of the Ombudsman in the 1987
Constitution and for the grant to it of broad investigative authority, is to
insulate said office from the long tentacles of officialdom that are able to
penetrate judges’ and fiscals’ offices, and others involved in the prosecution
of erring public officials, and through the exertion of official pressure and
influence, quash, delay, or dismiss
investigations into malfeasances and misfeasances
committed by public officers.  It was
deemed necessary, therefore, to create a
special office to investigate all criminal complaints against public officers regardless of whether
or not the acts or omissions complained of are related to or arise from the
performance of the duties of their office. 
The Ombudsman Act makes perfectly clear that the jurisdiction of the
Ombudsman encompasses “all kinds of malfeasance,
misfeasance, and non-feasance
that have been committed by any officer or, employee
as mentioned in Section 13 hereof, during his tenure of
office” (Sec. 16, R.A. 6770).

The murder of
three persons is, without any doubt, an illegal act.  Since it was allegedly committed by the petitioner as provincial governor
of Zambales, the crime lies within the pale of the
Ombudsman’s investigative authority.

The Ombudsman Act of 1989 which took effect on December 7, 1989 (Sec. 15, R.A. 6770)
vests in the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable
by the Sandiganbayan.

“SEC. 15.  Powers, Functions and
Duties. – The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions
and duties:

(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 of
this primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at
any stage, from any investigatory agency
of Government, the investigation of such
cases.” (p. 74, Rollo.)

The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over
offenses committed by public officials when the penalty prescribed by law for
the offense is higher than prision correccional (Sec. 4, subpar.
(c), P.D. 1606). 
The murder charge against the petitioner carries the penalty of reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to death (Art. 248, Revised Penal Code),
hence, it is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, and the
Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction to investigate it.

Indeed, the labors of the constitutional commission that created
the Ombudsman as a special body to investigate erring public officials would be
wasted if its jurisdiction were confined to the investigation of minor and less
grave offenses arising from, or related to, the duties of public office, but
would exclude those grave and terrible crimes that spring from abuses of
official powers and prerogatives, for
it is in the investigation of the latter where the need for an independent, fearless, and honest investigative body, like the
Ombudsman, is greatest.

WHEREFORE, the petition
for certiorari and prohibition is dismissed for lack of merit.  Costs against the
petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., on leave.