FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 130319, October 21, 1998 ]
ERIBERTO L. VENUS, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ANIANO DESIERTO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN; SANDIGANBAYAN
[THIRD DIVISION]; MARS REGALADO AND HARRY ABAYON, RESPONDENTS.
DISSENTING OPINION
VITUG, J.:
The Court is, once again, confronted with a situation where the Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor are unable to agree on whether or not there exists a probable cause that can warrant the filing of an information.
I have serious misgivings on the Court's resolve to interfere in the exercise by the Onbudsman of his investigatory and prosecutory powers. In the face of all the quagmire, the Ombudsman stands pat on his decision to file an information with the Sandiganbayan and leave to the latter the final determination of petitioner's guilt or innocence. The Ombudsman is the proper adjudicator in aspects of this nature,1 and the Court has almost always adopted, quite aptly, a policy of non-interference in the exercise of his constitutionality mandated powers in this regard. In one case, the Court has said:
"Otherwise stated, it is beyond the ambit of this Court to review the exercise of discretion of the Ombudsman in prosecuting or dismissing a complaint before it. Such initiative and independence are inherent in the Ombudsman who, beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and preserver of the integrity of the public service."2
Albeit, there have been rare instances when the Court has intervened but only where there is a clear case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Ombudsman.3 Indeed, this Court is not a trier of facts; the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan are.
Petitioner's argument harps on the propriety of and soundness in the appreciation by the Ombudsman of the facts of the case. The latter's marginal note4 stems from his review of the investigation conducted and conclusions reached by the investigating prosecutor. The Ombudsman is not required to conduct anew another investigation1aшphi1. He may agree, fully or partly, or disagree completely with the investigating prosecutor. The Ombudsman in the process may even err in his judgment but such an error would certainly not perforce constitute grave abuse of discretion.
It cannot be gainsaid that the presence or absence of the elements of a crime, as well as matters of defense, would be independent on the evidence that can be adduced and thereafter passed upon in a full blown trial on the merits. This Court has once observed:
"It must be stressed here that a preliminary investigation is essentially inquisitorial, and is often the only means of discovering the persons who may be seasonably charged with a crime, to enable the prosecutor to prepare his complaint or information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof, and it does not place the persons against whom it is taken in jeopardy. It is not the occassion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence; it is for the presentation of such evidence only as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof."5
Most importantly, the office of an extraordinary remedy of prohibition is not to correct errors of judgment but to prevent or restrain usurpation by inferior tribunals and to compel them to observe the limitation of their jurisdiction.6 If the inferior court or tribunal has jurisdiction over the person and subject matter of the controversy, the writ will not lie to stop it from exercising judicial power.7 The majority in granting the petition for prohibition has effectively prejudged the case and thereby predicted that the evidence against petitioner will not stand before the Sandiganbayan. It is unduly precipitate for this Court to preempt the Sandiganbayan on this matter.1aшphi1
ACCORDINGLY, I am constrained to vote for the DENIAL of the Petition for Prohibition and for remanding the case to the Sandiganbayan and directing it to there upon resolve the case with dispatch.
Footnotes
1 Camanag vs. Guerrero, 268 SCRA 473, 495.
2 Alba vs. Nitorreda, 254 SCRA 753, 765-766, citing: Ocampo, IV vs. Ombudsman, 225 SCRA 725; Fernando vs. Sandiganbayan, 212 SCRA 680..
3 Young vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 228 SCRA 718, 722.
4 "Allow the court to find absence of bad faith. Probable cause exists." Decision, 11.
5 Olivarez vs. Sandiganbayan, 248 SCRA 700, 711.
6 Herrera. Remedial Law, 1991 Edition, p. 137.
7 Vergara vs. Ruque, 78 SCRA 312, 329-330.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
