View full case

MELCHOR J. CHIPOCO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

FACTS:

Mayor Wilfredo Balais sold his Nissan Patrol Wagon 2001 model to Eduardo Ayunting for P500,000. Ayunting then sold the vehicle to the local government unit of the Municipality of Labason, represented by Vice Mayor Virgilio Go, for P960,000. The Sangguniang Bayan of Labason passed a resolution authorizing Balais to negotiate the rescission of the contract of sale for the vehicle as it was found to be disadvantageous and prejudicial to the government. Roberto Galon filed a complaint with the Ombudsman against several government officials, including Balais and Go, for violations of R.A. No. 3019. The Ombudsman found probable cause against Balais, Go, and Ayunting, and another complaint was filed based on new documents submitted by Ayunting. The Ombudsman issued a resolution finding probable cause against several government officials for violations of R.A. No. 3019 and the RPC. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the Ombudsman. The petitioners now filed the present petition for certiorari.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to charge the petitioners for violations of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Article 171(2) of the RPC.

  2. Whether the Ombudsman had a factual and legal basis to find probable cause for violations of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Article 171(2) of the RPC.

  3. Whether the application for injunctive relief should be granted.

RULING:

  1. The Court finds that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the resolution and order finding probable cause to charge the petitioners. The Ombudsman's exercise of its investigatory and prosecutorial powers was grounded on probable cause and supported by the evidence presented. Thus, the Court dismisses the petition.

  2. The Court affirmed the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause for violations of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Article 171(2) of the RPC. The Ombudsman performed its mandate in ascertaining facts and circumstances that reasonably warrant a belief that the petitioners are probably guilty. The Court will not disturb the finding of probable cause as long as it has a factual and legal basis.

  3. The Court denied the application for injunctive relief, as it may result in the prejudgment of the main case. Granting the application would effectively confirm the validity and strength of the petitioners' defenses, thereby prejudging the merits of the main case. Courts should avoid granting injunctive reliefs that dispose of the main case without trial.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Ombudsman has plenary powers in the exercise of its investigatory and prosecutorial powers for resolving criminal complaints against public officials and employees.

  • The Court has the power to review the acts of the Ombudsman when there is a grave abuse of discretion, such as when crucial facts and evidence are disregarded or when there is a violation of the Constitution, the law, or prevailing jurisprudence.

  • Probable cause is defined as the existence of facts and circumstances that would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion of guilt.

  • Probable cause does not require absolute certainty or an inquiry into the sufficiency of evidence to secure a conviction. It is enough that there is a reasonable belief that the act or omission complained of constitutes the crime charged based on the presence of the elements of the crime.

  • The elements of the crime of falsification by a public officer, employee, or notary public are: (a) the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public; (b) the offender takes advantage of their official position; and (c) the offender falsifies a document by committing any of the acts of falsification under Article 171 of the RPC.

  • The Ombudsman has the authority to determine probable cause in criminal cases within its jurisdiction, and its finding will not be disturbed as long as it has a factual and legal basis.

  • Courts should avoid granting injunctive relief that may result in prejudgment of the main case, as it would dispose of the case without trial and reverse the burden of proof.