FACTS:

The case revolves around the death of Florencio V. Rueda who died after undergoing surgery at the UST hospital. The attending surgeon was Dr. Domingo Antonio Jr., and the anaesthesiologist was Dr. Erlinda Balatbat-Reyes. The hospital's findings indicated that Florencio died of complications of "unknown cause." Dissatisfied with the hospital's findings, petitioner requested the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to conduct an autopsy, which concluded that Florencio's death was due to lack of care by the attending physician in administering anesthesia. Based on the NBI's findings, the NBI recommended charging Dr. Antonio and Dr. Balatbat-Reyes for Homicide through Reckless Imprudence.

During the preliminary investigation, there were several confusing events. Prosecutor Antonio M. Israel was initially assigned to the case but had to inhibit himself due to his relation to one of the doctors' counsel. Prosecutor Norberto G. Leono was then assigned to the case but was disqualified based on the petitioner's motion for disregarding prevailing laws and jurisprudence regarding preliminary investigations. The case was then referred to Prosecutor Ramon O. Carisma, who recommended holding only Dr. Reyes criminally liable and dismissing the complaint against Dr. Antonio. Assistant City Prosecutor Josefina Santos Sioson then suggested re-raffling the case due to Prosecutor Carisma's alleged partiality, and it was assigned to Prosecutor Leoncia R. Dimagiba. However, Prosecutor Dimagiba endorsed the dismissal of the complaint against Dr. Reyes and filed a corresponding information against Dr. Antonio. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration to challenge Prosecutor Dimagiba's findings.

The case was subsequently transferred to Prosecutor Eudoxia T. Gualberto, who recommended that Dr. Reyes be included in the criminal information. However, before the recommendation could be acted upon, the case was transferred yet again to Senior State Prosecutor Gregorio A. Arizala, who ultimately exonerated Dr. Reyes from any wrongdoing. City Prosecutor Porfirio G. Macaraeg and City Prosecutor Jesus F. Guerrero both approved the exoneration. In response, petitioner filed graft charges against Prosecutors Guerrero, Macaraeg, and Arizala before the Office of the Ombudsman, accusing them of manifest partiality in favor of Dr. Reyes. However, the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of evidence. Petitioner now challenges the Ombudsman's exercise of discretionary power and alleges grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUES:

1. • Can the Court review the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman?
2. • Did the Ombudsman commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against the City Prosecutors?

RULING:

1. • The Court can review the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman when there is an abuse of discretion.
2. • In this case, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against the City Prosecutors.

PRINCIPLES:

• The Court has the power to review the action of the Ombudsman when there is an abuse of discretion.

• "Grave abuse of discretion" refers to an exercise of power in an arbitrary or despotic manner, evading a positive duty or refusing to perform a duty enjoined by law.

• The Ombudsman has the power to investigate any act or omission of any public official that appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.

• The Ombudsman has the discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed.