View full case

FELICIDAD M. ROQUE v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

FACTS:

The petitioners, Felicidad M. Roque and Prudencio N. Mabanglo, were former Schools Division Superintendents of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS). Roque retired on May 17, 1991, and Mabanglo retired on May 8, 1997.

On January 14, 1991, auditors from the Commission on Audit (COA) conducted an audit on the P9.36 million allotment released by DECS Regional Office No. XI to its division offices. The audit revealed deficiencies and violations of various laws and regulations. Complaints were subsequently filed before the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao against several individuals, including Roque on May 16, 1991, and Mabanglo on May 7, 1991. The Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao found the complaints proper for preliminary investigation and assigned docket numbers OMB-MIN-91-0201 and OMB-MIN-91-0203 to the cases of Mabanglo and Roque, respectively.

The petitioners filed their counter-affidavits, and on March 18, 1997, the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao resolved OMB-MIN-91-0201, finding all the respondents probably guilty of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The resolution was approved by the Ombudsman on September 19, 1997, and an Information was filed before the Sandiganbayan against several respondents, including Mabanglo. On April 30, 1997, OMB-MIN-91-0203 was resolved, recommending the filing and prosecution of all respondents for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The resolution was approved by the Ombudsman on August 22, 1997, and two Informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan against several respondents, including Roque.

The petitioners filed a petition for mandamus on August 14, 1997, alleging undue and unjustifiable delay in resolving the complaints against them. A temporary restraining order was subsequently issued by the court.

ISSUES:

  1. Propriety of Mandamus - whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the ombudsman to dismiss the criminal charges filed against the petitioners.

  2. Violation of Petitioners' Constitutional Rights - whether the delay in resolving the graft charges against the petitioners violated their rights to due process and to a speedy disposition of the cases filed against them.

  3. Whether the delay in terminating the preliminary investigation and filing the information violated the petitioner's right to due process and the speedy disposition of cases.

  4. Whether the filing of the information against the petitioner violated a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the Court.

RULING:

  1. Propriety of Mandamus - The Court ruled that mandamus is the proper remedy in this case. While the general rule is that mandamus cannot be used to compel the performance of an official act or duty that involves discretion or judgment, there are exceptions such as cases of gross abuse of discretion, manifest injustice, or palpable excess of authority. In this case, there was a long and unwarranted delay in resolving the graft charges against the petitioners, which amounts to a gross abuse of discretion, manifest injustice, and palpable excess of authority. Therefore, mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel the ombudsman to act on the complaints.

  2. Violation of Petitioners' Constitutional Rights - The Court ruled that the delay in resolving the graft charges against the petitioners violated their rights to due process and to a speedy disposition of the cases. The delay of almost six years disregarded the ombudsman's duty to act promptly on complaints as mandated by the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770. This delay violated the petitioners' constitutional rights and warranted the dismissal of the criminal cases.

  3. The inordinate delay in terminating the preliminary investigation and filing the information violated the petitioner's right to due process and the speedy disposition of cases. Thus, the informations should be dismissed.

  4. The petition to cite the respondents in contempt is devoid of merit because the information against the petitioner was filed before the issuance of the TRO. Additionally, the petition for contempt was filed in contravention of the rule that contempt petitions arising from or related to a principal action pending in court should be docketed, heard, and decided separately.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Mandamus cannot be used to compel the performance of an official act or duty that involves discretion or judgment, except in cases of gross abuse of discretion, manifest injustice, or palpable excess of authority.

  • Delay in resolving criminal cases may violate the right to due process and the right to a speedy disposition of cases, as guaranteed by the Constitution.

  • The delay in conducting a preliminary investigation violates the constitutionally guaranteed right to due process and the speedy disposition of cases.

  • The absence of a preliminary investigation can be corrected by giving the accused such investigation, but an undue delay in conducting a preliminary investigation cannot be corrected.

  • The filing of an information does not cure the long and unexplained delay in terminating the preliminary investigation.

  • Contempt petitions arising from or related to a principal action pending in court should be docketed, heard, and decided separately, unless the court orders their consolidation.