G.R. NOS. 167006-07 - DANILO D. COLLANTES, VS. HON. SIMEON MARCELO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, AND THE FACT FINDING INTELLIGENCE BUREAU AS REPRESENTED BY ATTY. MARIA OLIVIA ELENA A. ROXAS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY , the herein Joint Resolution dated April 18, 2001 penned by GIO Pascasio is thus SET ASIDE . [15] The Acting Ombudsman approved the recommendation on October 5, 2002. After further fact-finding investigation, the Fact Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) revived the cases filed against the DPWH officials [16] and the members of R-PAC, with the case docketed as OMB C-C-03-0383-G. Baraquero, Collantes, and Rodenas of the RPAC filed their Joint Counter-Affidavit (with Manifestation). [17] They moved for the dismissal of the case arguing that similar cases had already been filed and dismissed for lack of evidence, and, therefore, the revival is unwarranted. Likewise, they denied the charges against them alleging that they only acted on the request of Pleyto to fix the current market value of the property. They did so by conducting a hearing and investigation. Thereafter, they issued the appraisal report. Finally, they denied liability for the contract, arguing that they had no hand in its execution. On March 31, 2004, Graft Investigator and Prosecution Officer Richard P. Palpal-Latoc submitted a Joint Resolution, [18] recommending the dismissal of the complaint. But the same was disapproved upon review by Assistant Ombudsman Pelagio S. Apostol, who found probable cause and recommended the filing of the Information for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A No. 3019: WHEREFORE , let an information be filed forthwith in Court for the prosecution of respondents SALVADOR A. PLEYTO, OSCAR R. BARAQUERO, DANILO O. COLLANTES, CARLOS Z. RODENAS, AND TERESITA FABIAN PAMINTUAN for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019, as amended. The complaint against ROMEO PANGANIBAN, LAMBERTO A. AGUILAR and GODOFREDO T. ZABALE be DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence. It is further recommended, that then Assistant Secretary Manuel G. Bunan (sic) and then Secretary Gregorio R. Vigilar be subjected to fact-finding investigation for possible gross inexcusable negligence in violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019, as amended. [19] This was approved by the Ombudsman on September 20, 2004. An Urgent Joint Motion for Reconsideration was filed by Baraquero, Collantes, and Rodenas, but the Ombudsman denied the same in the assailed Supplemental Order, [20] for having been tardily filed and for lack of merit. Hence, this petition by Collantes, positing these issues: I WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN HE RECOMMENDED THE FILING OF INFORMATION AGAINST PETITIONER FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 3(e) OF THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT DESPITE LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST HIM. II WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE FAILED TO RECONSIDER THE MEMORANDUM DATED 11 MAY 2004 DESPITE COMPELLING REASONS FOR THE REVERSAL THEREOF. [21] We find merit in the petition. The rule is that as far as crimes cognizable by the Sandiganbayan are concerned, the determin