G.R. No. 117741 - MOISES S. SAMSON, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, EVALUATION AND PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION BUREAU, NORMA SANCHEZ AND LEONITO L. CATARROJA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, there being no probable cause to justify further inquiry into the instant charges and counter-charges embodied in the above-entitled cases, let these cases be, as the same are, hereby recommended, DISMISSED. SO RESOLVED. [5] Mr. Raul R. Arnau and Assistant Ombudsman Abelardo L. Aportadera, Jr. reviewed and later on endorsed the aforesaid joint resolution to Overall Deputy Ombudsman Francisco A. Villa, who approved it on June 22, 1994. The public respondent, in its August 26, 1994 order, approved by Overall Deputy Ombudsman Villa on September 9, 1994, [6] denied petitioners motion for partial reconsideration of the joint resolution with respect to the dismissal of OMB-0-93-0920. Hence, this petition imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondent for dismissing OMB-0-93-0920, a supposedly prima facie graft case against private respondents. The petition must be dismissed for lack of merit. The public respondent did not act without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed joint resolution and order. Neither can it be compelled by mandamus to reverse its findings and dispositions. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. In other words, the power of discretion is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. It must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty and a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. [7] In this case, we do not find any grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondent in dismissing OMB-0-93-0920 for lack of evidence to establish a probable cause against private respondents. Petitioners complaint was predicated on his assertion that the possession of pre-printed and non-serialized health certificates by the applicants manifests that they secured them after paying the fees without undergoing the usual physical and medical examination and immunization. Nonetheless, public respondent found that: [T]he charge and allegations set forth in the complaint-affidavit taken in juxtaposition with the controverting statements of answering respondents on record, negate the adverse specifications embodied in the said complaint-affidavit to the effect that respondents Leonito Catarroja and Norma Sanchez have violated the provisions of the Anti-Graft Law (R.A. 3019, as amended). As has been above elucidated by their respective counter-statements, it appears that the evidence on record failed to substantiate the alleged anomalies perpetrated by the herein respondents. In the first place, complainant was not able to present evidence disclosing the fact that there are other health certificates which were printed personally by respondent Catarroja. Upon the other hand, the Special Committee which inves