RACHO v MIRO
against the petitioner. The Ombudsman found no basis to
FACTS:
The Action Team of DYHP of the Radio Mindanao Network
addressed a letter (on behalf of an anonymous complainant) to
Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas Primo C. Miro and
accused Nieto A. Racho (a BIR employee) of having
accumulated wealth disproportionate to his cinome. The
photocopied bank certifications disclosed that Racho had a
total deposit of P5,793, 881.39 with three banks.
The Graft Investigation Officer I, Pio R. Dargantes,
investigated and directed the DYHP to submit a sworn
statement of its witnesses. However the DYHP filed a
Manifestation withdrawing its complaint for lack of witnesses.
The GIO then dismissed the case and ruled that the
photocopied bank certifications did not constitue substantial
evidence required in administrative proceedings.
Ombudsman Director Virginia Palanca-Santiago disapproved
of the GIO’s resolution and held Racho administratively liable
for falsification and dishonesty and dismissed him from service
with forfeiture of all beenfits and perpetual disqualification to
hold office. She found probable cause to charge Racho with
falsification of public document due to him falsifying a public
document consisting of his SALN, disclosure of business
interest and financial connections, and identification of
relatives in the government service, and bt stating that his cash
in bank was only P15,000 and that his assets minus liabilities
was only P203,758 when in truth he has bank deposits worth
P5,793,801.39.
The appellate court ordered a reinvestigation of the cases
change, modify, nor reverse her previous findings that there is
probable cause for falsification of a public document against
Racho.
The petitioner ascribes grave abuse on the Ombudsman
Director Palanca-Santiago since she did not inhibit herself in
the reinvestigation. There was a denial of due process because
of the fact that the OMB Director handled the preliminary
investigation and the reinvestigation. The petitioner believes
that the Director turned hostile to him and that she had lost the
cold neutrality of an impartial judge. He questions the haste
with which the reinvestigation was done and the lack of a
hearing thereon.
The OMB averred that the Director resolving the investigation
adverse to petitioner did not necessarily indicate partiality. The
Reinvestigation Report was merely recommendatory and the
finding of probblae caue was done in line with official duty.
The petitioner failed to show how the Director showed hostility
towards him.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the Ombudsman Director gravely abused her
discretion when she did not inhibit herself in the
reinvestigation? NO. There was no grave abuse on the part
of the respondents.
Whether or not the petitioner was denied due process on
reinvestigation? NO, he was not denied due process on
reinvestigation.
Whether or not there was probable cause to hold the petitioner
liable for falsification?
RATIO:
The Ombudsman’s ruling and his decision will not be
overturned. The finding of the Ombudsman that there was
probable cause to hold the petitioner liable for falsification (by
making untruthful statements in a narration of facts) rests on
substantial evidence. The prosecution of offenses done by
public officers is vested primarily in the OMB due to the
Ombudsman Act, which gave the OMB a wide latitude of
[plenary] investigatory and prosecutor powers. It may, for
every particular investigation, decide how best to pursue such
investigation. It is freed form legislative, executive, or judicial
intervention. This is to ensure that it is insulated from any
pressure or influence. Unless there are valid reasons, the Court
will refrain from interfering and will respect the independence
of the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman is empowered to determine whether there
exists reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been
committed and that the accused is probably guilty htereof and,
thereafter, to file the corresponding information. Such finding
of probable cause, is a finding of fact, which is generally not
reviewable by this Court. It is only through grave abuse that a
plea for review of the OMB’s resolution may be entertained.
The determination of probable cause need not be based on clear
and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence
establishing absolute certainty of guilt. It is enough that it is
believed that the act/omission complained of constitutes the
offense charged. The trial of a case is conducted for the
reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the
charge. A finding of probable cause merely binds the
suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.
We do not agree that the petitioner was denied due process
when no hearing was conducted on his motion for
reinvestigation. A clarificatory hearing is not required during
preliminary investigation. It is optional on the investigating
officer, according to Section 3e of Rule 112, which is
evidenced by “may.” It states that if the investigating officer
believes that there are things that have to be clarified, he may
set a hearing for that purpose, during which the parties shall be
given the opportunity to be present but without the right to
examine/cross-examine. This applies equally to a motion for
reinvestigation. In this case, the OMB found it unnecessary to
hold additional clarificatory hearings. There was a hearing that
was conducted during the preliminary investigation where
petitioner invoked his right to remain silent and confront
witnesses who may be presented against him, although there
was none presented.
There was no manifest abuse of discretion on Director Palanca-
Santiago for her refusal to inhibit herself in the reinvestigation.
Even if a preliminary investigation resembles a realistic
judicial appraisal of the merits of the case, public prosecutors
could not decide whether there is evidence beyond reasonable
doubt. They are not considered judges, but merely quasi-
judicial officers. One adverse ruling by itself would not prove
bias and prejudice against a party sufficient to disqualify even a
judge. Absent proven allegations of a specific conduct showing
prejudice and hostility, We cannot impute grave abuse on
respondent director. To ask prosecutors to recuse themselves
on reinvestigation upon every unfavorable ruling would cause
unwarranted delays in the prosecution.
The petitioner failed to attach a certified true copy of the
assailed Resolution in disregard of paragraph 2, Section 1,
Rule 65 on certiorari. The requirement of providing appellate
courts with certified true copies of judgments or final orders
that are the subjects of review is indispensable to aid them in
resolving whether or not to give due course to the petitions.
This necessary requirement cannot be perfunctorily ignored or
violated. Although, the serious matters in this case brought Us
to tackle the substantial merits hereof with least regard to
technicalities.