G.R. No. 144784 - PEDRO G. SISTOZA, VS. ANIANO DESIERTO IN

Ruling

Accordingly, on 11 July 2000 Sistoza filed an amplified motion for reconsideration with the Office of the Special Prosecutor but this was also denied on 8 August 2000. On 25 August 2000 the Ombudsman affirmed the denial. Hence, this petition. On 18 October 2000 this Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the Sandiganbayan from conducting further proceedings in Crim. Case No. 26072 against petitioner Sistoza in order not to render the instant petition academic and futile. Petitioner Sistoza argues that he had no active participation in the award of the supply of tomato paste to Elias General Merchandising and that his involvement was limited to signing the purchase order for this food item. He claims that upon receipt of the purchase order, he cursorily perused the document and readily affixed his signature on it since the purchase order had already passed the scrutiny of three (3) office divisions of the Bureau of Corrections, namely, the Supply Division, Management Division and Accounting Division. He concludes that as a matter of law his signature on the purchase order, without more, does not prove any violation of Sec. 3, par. (e), RA 3019. It is settled that the preliminary investigation proper, i.e., the determination of whether there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and should be subjected to the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial, is the function of the prosecution. [14] For criminal cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, it is the Office of the Special Prosecutor, as an organic component of the Office of the Ombudsman, which exercises investigatory and prosecutory powers. Concomitantly, as a general rule, this Court does not interfere with the Ombudsman's determination of the existence or absence of probable cause. The strict application of this rule, insofar as the Ombudsman is concerned, is not a trivial matter. In the instant case, we see this principle at work when the Sandiganbayan deferred to the authority of the prosecution to exercise investigatory powers when it granted petitioner Sistoza's motion for reinvestigation. As in every rule, however, there are settled exceptions. Hence, the principle of non-interference does not apply when there is grave abuse of discretion [15] which would authorize the aggrieved person to file a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. There is grave abuse of discretion where power is exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, patent and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. [16] When the Ombudsman does not take essential facts into consideration in the determination of probable cause, it has been ruled that he gravely abuses his discretion. [17] Section 3, par. (e), RA No. 3019 defines "corrupt practices of public officers." It provide