G.R. Nos. 168830-31 [February 6, 2007], 543 PHIL 600-622″
Facts
In this case, private respondent Nora L. Magnaye filed an administrative complaint against several officials of Batangas State University (BSU), alleging various offenses, including grave misconduct, oppression, and dishonesty. The Office of the Ombudsman conducted an investigation and recommended the indictment of some of the university officials. Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo issued a Supplemental Resolution, finding the petitioners guilty of several offenses and imposing the penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioners challenged this decision, arguing that the Ombudsman had exceeded its jurisdiction by determining their guilt without proper trial.
Issue
WON the Ombudsman has acted without jurisdiction in finding petitioners already liable for criminal offenses?
Ruling
No, the Ombudsman did not exceed its jurisdiction. Both the 1987 Constitution and the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6770) empower the public respondent to investigate and prosecute on its own or on a complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official or employee, office or agency when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. By virtue of this power, it may conduct a preliminary investigation for the mere purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. Probable cause, as used in preliminary investigations, has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.
In this case, the public respondent found probable cause to indict the petitioners based on various pieces of evidence, including the private respondent’s sworn complaints, statements, affidavits from her witnesses, and official documents. A clarificatory hearing was conducted during which the public respondent questioned the private respondent to clarify her complaints. Subsequently, the public respondent issued two comprehensive resolutions in 2005, detailing the bases for finding probable cause against the petitioners for the alleged criminal offenses. These resolutions extensively analyzed the charges against the petitioners, carefully considering the elements of each crime and thoroughly examining the evidence provided by the private respondent for each charge.
Further, the Ombudsman’s use of the term “liable for” simply indicated the existence of probable cause. The case emphasizes that a preliminary investigation is an inquiry to decide whether there is sufficient reason to believe that a crime has been committed and the accused should be tried, not a declaration of guilt. The Ombudsman’s directive for further investigation didn’t conclude guilt but aimed to gather more evidence before deciding whether an indictment is warranted.
Hence, the Ombudsman has the jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigations to determine probable cause.
Real LexEcon 