G.R. No. 256337 - CESAR J. DELA CRUZ, VS. THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly approved the recommendation to withdraw the Information. The Ombudsman thus filed a Manifestation with Motion to Withdraw Information with the Sandiganbayan which was granted by the latter in an Order dated May 20, 2002. However, in June 2003, Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo (Ombudsman Marcelo) ordered the review of the original complaints against Teotimo, et al. , which the Commission on Audit filed with his Office. Acting on Ombudsman Marcelo's order, Prosecutor Jovito A. Coresis, Jr. reviewed the complaints and found sufficient evidence to conclude that a crime for violation of RA 3019, Sec. 3(e), as amended, had been committed, and Teotimo and his co-accused are probably guilty thereof. The Ombudsman then filed an Information with the Sandiganbayan. The Redulla case involved an Information already filed before the Sandiganbayan while the present case involves a Motion for Reconsideration of a Resolution finding probable cause to indict Dela Cruz for the crimes charged. If the Ombudsman can freely exercise its power to reinvestigate cases and even file another Information after the same was already withdrawn, the Ombudsman can also reinvestigate a case during the preliminary investigation stage and reconsider or revisit its earlier ruling. Considering that the present case does not fall under any of the exceptions recognized under jurisprudence when courts may interfere with the investigatory powers of the Ombudsman, the Court upholds the policy of non-­interference in the Ombudsman's exercise of its constitutionally mandated powers including its power to motu proprio initiate a reinvestigation or reconsideration of a case within its jurisdiction. [89] The Court indeed recognizes the right of the Ombudsman to reinvestigate cases or reconsider its earlier rulings but such power, as with all constitutionally mandated powers, must be wielded cautiously as to not frustrate the ends of justice. Absent any clear showing of grave abuse of discretion in the determination of the existence of probable cause and the issuance of a subsequent Order affirming its earlier findings that there is indeed probable cause to indict Dela Cruz of the crimes charged, the instant Petition for Certiorari must be dismissed and the Court respects the findings of the Ombudsman in the assailed Decision. A party invoking Rule 65 of the Rules of Court must substantiate, not merely allege, that there was grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of the powers of the Ombudsman. WHEREFORE , the Petition is DISMISSED . The Order dated February 13, 2020 of the Office of the Ombudsman in the criminal case docketed as OMB-C-C-17-0387 is AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED.