View full case

SUSAN MENDOZA-ARCE v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for certiorari to annul the resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) finding a prima facie case for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Revised Penal Code against petitioner Susan Mendoza-Arce. Respondent Santiago B. Villaruz is one of the oppositors in Special Proceeding Case No. V-6433, which involves the approval of the will of Remedios Bermejo-Villaruz. Santiago was removed as the administrator of the estate for neglecting his duties and Nicolas B. Villaruz, Jr. was appointed as the new administrator. Santiago and his brother opposed Nicolas' appointment and submitted a certification and an agreement stating Santiago's authority to manage the nipa lands of their mother, as well as an agreement to honor the lease of the properties. The trial court denied their opposition but did not mention the agreement in the order. After the approval of Nicolas' bond, respondent Susan Mendoza-Arce prepared a Letter of Administration based on the order, which granted Nicolas full authority over the estate. This led to respondent Santiago filing a complaint against petitioner for falsification of the LOA.

The case also involves a complaint against petitioner Susan Mendoza-Arce, a court stenographer, for alleged corruption and falsification of public documents. The complaint was filed by respondent Santiago B. Villaruz, who accused petitioner of acting with partiality, bad faith, and negligence in attributing false statements to Judge Pestaño in the appointment of Nicolas B. Villaruz as administrator of an estate. Respondent claimed that this resulted in his deprivation of income and assets. Graft Investigation Officer Estrela Alma A. Singco recommended further investigation, leading to petitioner's counter-affidavit where she admitted issuing the document but claimed compliance with Judge Pestaño's order. Respondent argued that petitioner usurped the functions of the branch clerk of court. Graft Investigation Officer Ricardo A. Rebollido later found probable cause against petitioner, stating that she caused undue injury to respondent and gave unwarranted benefit to the administrator.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether there is probable cause to charge petitioner Susan Mendoza-Arce for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 and Falsification of Official Document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.

  2. Whether the petition for certiorari should have been filed in the Court of Appeals.

  3. Did the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) act without or in excess of its authority in ordering the filing of informations against the petitioner for violation of R.A. No. 3019, §3(e) and the Revised Penal Code, Art. 171, par. 3, despite the absence of probable cause?

  4. Did the petitioner violate §3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 by including a certain phrase in the letter of administration (LOA) she prepared?

  5. Did the petitioner commit falsification under Article 171, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code by stating in the LOA that Nicolas B. Villaruz, Jr. had been appointed administrator?

  6. Whether there was a falsification committed by petitioner Susan Mendoza-Arce.

  7. Whether petitioner could be prosecuted for violation of R.A. No. 3019, §3(e).

RULING:

  1. The Court found that there is no probable cause to charge petitioner Susan Mendoza-Arce for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 and Falsification of Official Document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court held that in the discharge of her official duties, petitioner could not be guilty of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, as asserted by the complainant.

  2. The Court held that the petition for certiorari questioning the Ombudsman's order or resolution may be filed in the Supreme Court, as it involves an allegation of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by the Ombudsman.

  3. The Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) acted without or in excess of its authority in ordering the filing of informations against the petitioner without probable cause. The absence of probable cause refers to the lack of well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof.

  4. The petitioner did not violate §3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 as there is no basis to establish "partiality," "bad faith," or "gross negligence" on her part in issuing the LOA. She merely performed a ministerial duty based on the court orders and followed the prescribed form in the Manual for Clerks of Courts.

  5. The petitioner did not commit falsification under Article 171, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code as there is no reasonable ground to believe that she had the requisite criminal intent. She prepared the LOA based on the order of Judge Pestaño approving the administrator's bond filed by Nicolas B. Villaruz, Jr.

  6. The court found that there was no willful or felonious act committed by petitioner Susan Mendoza-Arce that warranted her prosecution for falsification.

  7. The court dismissed the complaint of respondent Santiago B. Villaruz against petitioner Susan Mendoza-Arce for violation of R.A. No. 3019, §3(e) and for falsification committed by a public officer under Art. 171 of the Revised Penal Code.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A criminal prosecution cannot be enjoined, but respect for the citizen's right to be free from unwarranted and vexatious prosecution is of infinitely more importance.

  • Generally, the Court does not interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations and gives investigating officers latitude of discretion in determining probable cause. However, there are exceptions to this general rule.

  • Absence of probable cause as a ground to not file informations.

  • Elements of violation of §3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.

  • The concept of ministerial duty in the performance of official duties.

  • Elements of falsification under Article 171, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code.

  • Requisite criminal intent or mens rea in falsification cases.

  • There must be proof of willful or felonious intent to commit falsification for one to be held criminally liable.

  • Complaints may be dismissed when there is no sufficient evidence to support the charges against the accused.