DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the instant original Petition for Certiorari is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
MERE DISAGREEMENT WITH THE OMBUDSMAN’S FINDINGS IS NOT ENOUGH REASON TO CONSTITUTE GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. PETITIONER MUST SHOW THAT THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION WAS CONDUCTED IN SUCH A WAY THAT AMOUNTED TO A VIRTUAL REFUSAL TO PERFORM THE DUTY ENJOINED BY LAW
All in all, the Court finds no grave abuse of discretion on the part of
public respondent due to the sheer absence of any evidence on record that
would warrant a finding of probable cause to indict private respondent for the
aforementioned criminal offenses. Petitioners carried the burden to prove that
public respondent’s findings were tainted with capricious, whimsical, or even
arbitrary jurisdictional error, but they failed to discharge said burden. As the
Court ruled in Arroyo v. Sandiganbayan,94 “[m]ere disagreement with the
Ombudsman’s findings is not enough reason to constitute grave abuse of
discretion. Petitioner must show that the preliminary investigation was
conducted in such a way that amounted to a virtual refusal to perform the duty
enjoined by law.”95 With no exceptional showing of such alleged grave abuse
of discretion here, the Court reverts to its policy of non-interference and
respect vis-a-vis public respondent’s executive power to detennine the
existence of probable cause in preliminary investigations involving public
officials. Thus, public respondent’s rulings relative to the dismissal of the
criminal charges against private respondent must stand and remain unassailed.
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 