View full case

HILARIO P. SORIANO v. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO

FACTS:

This case involves Hilario Soriano who filed a complaint against Bank Examiner Mely Palad for falsification of a public document. After a resolution recommending that Palad be charged in court was issued by Assistant City Prosecutor Balasbas and approved by First Assistant City Prosecutor Dimagiba, the case was later reopened upon motion by Palad. Manila City Prosecutor Garcia then approved the recommendation to reopen the case and forwarded the records to Chief State Prosecutor Zuño of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to avoid any suspicion of partiality and bias. In response, Soriano filed a complaint against Garcia for violation of the Revised Penal Code and R.A. No. 3109, alleging that Garcia's endorsement of the complaint to the DOJ was in dereliction of his duties and a form of retaliation against Soriano. The Ombudsman subsequently dismissed Soriano's complaint for lack of probable cause, and Soriano's motion for reconsideration was denied. Soriano then filed a petition for certiorari before the court, seeking the annulment of the Ombudsman's orders.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the dismissal of the complaint against Manila City Prosecutor Ramon Garcia for violation of Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code is justified.

  2. Whether or not the dismissal of the complaint against Ramon Garcia for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 is justified.

RULING:

  1. The dismissal of the complaint against Manila City Prosecutor Ramon Garcia for violation of Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code is justified. The Court held that the filing of the suit was premature as the controversy against Bank Examiner Mely Palad was still pending and her guilt had not yet been proven.

  2. The dismissal of the complaint against Ramon Garcia for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 is also justified. The Court ruled that the damages caused by the delay of justice did not fall within the meaning of undue injury contemplated in the law, as it pertains to actual damages capable of pecuniary estimation and quantification.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The violation of Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code requires the presence of the following essential elements: 1) the offender is a public officer or officer of the law who has a duty to cause the prosecution of, or to prosecute, offenses; 2) there is dereliction of the duties of his office; and 3) the offender acts with malice and deliberate intent to favor the violator of the law. (U.S. vs. Mendoza, 23 Phil. 194)

  • The violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 requires that the undue injury sustained must be actual and certain, and capable of pecuniary estimation. (Llorente vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 122166)