HON. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, VS. HON. MARIETTA HOBILLA-ALINIO IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 62,…

Vasquez versus Hobilla-Alinio

The Case

This is a special civil action for certiorari brought by the Ombudsman against a presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Bago City. The Ombudsman asks the Supreme Court to annul the judge's orders holding in abeyance the warrants of arrest and quashing two Informations for murder that the Office of the Ombudsman had filed against a mayor and several other persons. The case matters because it settles two things every reviewee must know: first, that the failure to furnish the respondent a copy of the Ombudsman's resolution is not a ground to quash an information, and second, that the Ombudsman's investigative and prosecutorial authority reaches any illegal act or omission of a public officer, whether or not it is connected with the performance of official duty.

Procedural History

Corazon Odelmo filed her complaint with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas. After preliminary investigation, that office found probable cause for double murder and recommended the filing of an Information before the Sandiganbayan. On review, the Office of the Special Prosecutor saw the evidence differently: it found that two separate crimes of murder were committed, but not in relation to the performance of the duties of the private respondents, and it recommended the filing of two separate Informations before the Regional Trial Court of Bago City. The Ombudsman approved that recommendation. Two Informations were then filed before the Regional Trial Court of Bago City, and warrants of arrest were issued the following day.

The private respondents moved to recall the warrants and to quash the Informations, complaining that they had never been served with a copy of the resolution. The presiding judge, Judge Marietta Hobilla-Alinio, granted both motions. The Office of the Ombudsman moved for reconsideration, but the judge denied it, stressing that her order had become final because the motion was filed beyond the reglementary period. The Ombudsman then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari, imputing grave abuse of discretion and lack or excess of jurisdiction to the judge.

Facts

On 31 December 1992, Dionesio Odelmo and his father Jose Odelmo were killed. Seeking justice, Corazon Odelmo appeared before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas on 12 February 1993 and filed a complaint for murder against Mayor Luis Mondia Jr. of Pulupandan, Negros Occidental, several police officers, and a number of other private individuals.

After preliminary investigation, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman found probable cause and recommended the filing of an Information for double murder against all of them before the Sandiganbayan. On review, however, the Office of the Special Prosecutor concluded that while two separate murders were committed, they were not committed in relation to the performance of the duties of the private respondents. It therefore recommended two separate Informations before the Regional Trial Court of Bago City. The Ombudsman approved this recommendation on 28 December 1993.

Two Informations were filed on 17 January 1994, and warrants of arrest were issued the next day. That same day, the private respondents moved to recall the warrants, claiming they had never received a copy of the complaint or of the resolution, and were thus denied the chance to seek reconsideration or reinvestigation. The next day they moved to quash the Informations on the ground that the Ombudsman had no authority to file them. The trial judge agreed with them on both counts.

Issues

• Whether or not the failure of the prosecution to furnish the private respondents a copy of the Ombudsman's resolution is a ground to quash the Informations.
• Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman has authority to investigate and prosecute illegal acts and omissions of public officers even when these are not connected with the performance of official duty.
• Whether or not certiorari is the proper remedy against an order granting a motion to quash.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 3. Grounds. - The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following grounds: (a) that the facts charged do not constitute an offense; (b) that the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged or the person of the accused; (c) that the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so; (d) that it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form; (e) that more than one offense is charged except in those cases in which existing laws prescribe a single punishment for various offenses; (f) that the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; (g) that it contains averments, which if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and (h) that the accused has been previously convicted or in jeopardy of being convicted, or acquitted of the offense charged.

This is the governing list of grounds, and the failure to serve a copy of the resolution is not among them.

Section 15 of Republic Act Number 6770, the Ombudsman Act of 1989, provides:

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.

This is the source of the Ombudsman's authority to file the Informations, and it does not limit that authority to acts connected with official duty.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the failure to furnish a copy of the resolution is not a ground to quash an information. The grounds are those listed in Section 3 of Rule 117, and this is not one of them. The Court added that even if the lack of authority of the officer who filed the information were invoked, it would still be inappropriate to quash, because the failure to serve the resolution merely rendered the filing of the Informations premature, since the avenue for reconsideration or reinvestigation was still open. It is here that the doctrine in Torralba comes into play: an incomplete preliminary investigation does not warrant quashing the information, nor does it obliterate the proceedings already had; instead, the court holds further proceedings in abeyance and remands the case to the Ombudsman for completion of the preliminary investigation.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that the Ombudsman has authority to investigate and prosecute any illegal act or omission of a public officer, whether or not it is connected with the performance of official duty. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in Deloso versus Domingo:

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.

On the third issue, the Court ruled that certiorari was proper. While an order granting a motion to quash is a final order and therefore immediately appealable, the Court has allowed certiorari where there is a patent, capricious and whimsical exercise of discretion by a trial judge, or where an appeal will not promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the disputed orders. The rule against substituting certiorari for a lost appeal, the Court said, should not be strictly enforced if the petition is genuinely meritorious.

Doctrine

Three rules must be retained. First, the failure of the prosecution to furnish the respondent a copy of the Ombudsman's resolution is not a ground to quash an information under Section 3 of Rule 117; it merely renders the filing premature, and the remedy is to remand the case to the Ombudsman for completion of the preliminary investigation, following Torralba. Second, under Section 15 of the Ombudsman Act, the Ombudsman's authority to investigate and prosecute embraces any crime committed by a public official, whether or not it arises from the performance of official duty, because the law does not distinguish and neither should the Court. Third, certiorari may be allowed despite the availability of appeal where the trial judge acted with patent, capricious and whimsical discretion, or where appeal will not promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the disputed orders.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the order quashing the Informations and the order denying reconsideration were set aside, and the cases were remanded to the Office of the Ombudsman for completion of the proceedings, with the result to be indorsed to the Regional Trial Court of Bago City for appropriate action.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: the Ombudsman's power reaches any illegal act or omission of a public officer, and the failure to serve the resolution is not a ground to quash but a reason to remand for completion of the preliminary investigation. Examiners use this case on the grounds to quash an information, on the scope of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction, and on certiorari as a substitute for a lost appeal.