18 Lazatin v.

Desierto
Facts:
July 1998 - Fact-finding and Intelligence bureau of the OMB filed a complaint
against Cong. Lazatin et al with Illegal Use of Public Funds (Art. 220) and violations
of Sec. 3, Pars. a and e of RA 3019
It alleged that Cong. Lazatin had irregularities with the use of his Countrywide
Development Fund (CDF) for 1996
He signed vouchers and supporting papers and received 18 cheques amounting to
P4.8M
With the help of Morales, Pelayo and David, he converted his CDF to cash
Preliminary investigation started and the Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation
Bureau (EPIB) recommended filing against petitioners 14 counts of malversation
and a violation of Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019
Resolution was approved by the OMB so the case was filed in the Sandiganbayan
Petitioners filed motions for reconsideration
Sandiganbayan ordered the prosecution to re-evaluate the cases against the
petitioners
OSP submitted to the OMB its resolution
It recommended dismissal for lack or insuciency of evidence
OMB ordered the Oce of Legal Aairs (OLA) to review the resolution, OLA
recommended to proceed to trial
Petitioners allege GADALEJ, saying that the OMB has no authority to overturn the
OSPs resolution, they allege that the OMB only has the power to watch, investigate
and recommend filing of cases and that they cannot prosecute
The OSP being a distinct entity in the constitution, petitioners allege that OMB has
no power over it, they allege that RA 6770 is unconstitutional
Issues:
W.O.N. RA 6770 is unconstitutional
No - it is not unconstitutional
The OMB is given functions or duties as may be provided by law
RA 6770 subsumes the OSP under the OMB, giving it the authority to
prosecute
W.O.N. OMB turning over the resolution of the OSP is tantamount to GADALEJ
No - certiorari cannot be used to examine and evaluate the evidence
There is not finding of GADALEJ, defined as:
Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The
Ombudsman's exercise of power must have been done in an
arbitrary or despotic manner which must be so patent and gross
as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal
to perform the duty enjoined or to act at allin contemplation of
law
OMB was acting in accordance with RA 6770 and properly exercised
its power of control and supervision over the OSP when it disapproved
the resolution
Petition is dismissed