CALINGIN
VS. DESIERTO
G.R. Nos. 145743-89, August 10, 2007, 529
SCRA 720
Facts:
Petitioner Antonio P. Calingin is a former mayor of
Claveria, Misamis Oriental. During his incumbency, the municipality undertook a
low-cost housing project. The Commission on Audit (COA) of Region X, Cagayan de
Oro City conducted a special audit of the housing project for calendar years
1995 and 1996. The members of the COA Special Audit Team executed a Joint
Affidavit embodying their findings for the purpose of filing criminal charges
against Calingin and other public officials. They then submitted their Audit
Report and Joint Affidavit to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao.
In a Resolution dated December 2, 1998, Graft
Investigation Officer Jocelyn R. Araune of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman
for Mindanao recommended the filing of criminal charges against the petitioner
and co-accused for violation of Section 3(e) and 3(h) of R.A. No. 3019,
otherwise known as Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices, and for violation of
Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code. Upon review, however, Special
Prosecution Officer Alberto B. Sipaco, Jr., Office of the Ombudsman for
Mindanao recommended that the said Resolution be disapproved and the charges be
dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. On August 13, 1999, then Ombudsman
Aniano A. Desierto, respondent, disapproved the Memorandum of Sipaco and
approved the Resolution of Araune.
Consequently, 47 Informations for violation of Section 3
(e) and (h) of R.A. No. 3019 and Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code were
filed with the Sandiganbayan against Calingin and his co-accused.
Calingin filed a motion for reinvestigation which was
granted by the Sandiganbayan. It then ordered the Office of the Special
Prosecutor to reinvestigate the cases.
In a Resolution dated July 20, 2000, Special Prosecutor
Norberto B. Ruiz recommended the dismissal of all the cases against all the
accused for lack of probable cause. In a
Memorandum dated August 10, 2000, the Chief of the Office of Legal Affairs,
Office of the Ombudsman, reversed the Ruiz Resolution and recommended that Calingin
and his co-accused be prosecuted. The Ombudsman approved the recommendation.
Hence, Calingin filed a petition for certiorari,
contending that the Office of Legal Affairs which recommended his prosecution
has no authority to review the findings and recommendation of the Office of the
Special Prosecutor since the latter is not subject to the control and
supervision of the Ombudsman.
Issue:
Whether respondent Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in disapproving the
recommendation of the Office of the Special Prosecutor to dismiss all the
charges against herein petitioner and his co-accused. Is the Special Prosecutor co-equal to the Ombudsman or to
his deputies?
Held:
No. The Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the
Special Prosecutor are creatures of the 1987 Constitution as provided by
Sections 5, 7 and 13 of Article XI.
In Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, the Court ruled that under
the Constitution, the Special Prosecutor is a mere subordinate of the Ombudsman
and can investigate and prosecute cases only upon the latter’s authority or
orders.
R.A. No. 6770, also known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989,
provides that the Special Prosecutor has the power and authority, under the
supervision and control of the Ombudsman, to conduct preliminary investigation
and prosecute criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan and perform such other
duties assigned to him by the Ombudsman.
Verily, the Office of the Special Prosecutor is but a
mere subordinate of the Ombudsman and is subject to his supervision and control.
In Perez v. Sandiganbayan, this Court held that control means “the power of an officer to alter or modify or
nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of
his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the
latter.” Clearly, in disapproving the recommendation of the Office of the
Special Prosecutor to dismiss all the charges against petitioner and his
co-accused, respondent Ombudsman did not act with grave abuse of discretion.
0
Comments
