G.R. No. 208086 - FLORENCIO MORALES, JR., VS. OMBUDSMAN CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES, ATTY. AGNES VST DEVANADERA, ATTY. MIGUEL NOEL T. OCAMPO, ATTY. JOYCE MARTINEZ-BARUT, ATTY. ALLAN S. HILBERO, AND ATTY. EDIZER J. RESURRECION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. The DOJ resolution (Resolution 212, series of 2009) is hereby RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor of Region IV, San Pablo City, is directed to file the necessary information for murder against respondents Primo Lopez, Lorenzo Pamplona, Florencio Morales, Jr. and Sandy Pamplona, should the information filed earlier against respondents Primo Lopez and Lorenzo Pamplona was already withdrawn, otherwise, to cause the amendment thereof to include respondents Sandy Pamplona and Florencio Morales, Jr. in the information as co-accused, and report the action taken hereon within ten (10) days from receipt thereof. [10] Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 111191. In a Decision [11] dated 7 June 2011, the CA modified the DOJ Resolution by dropping the charge against petitioner. Atty. Allan S. Hilbero filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. [12] In a Resolution [13] dated 17 October 2011, the RTC complied with the CA decision and dropped petitioner as an accused. On 19 December 2011, petitioner filed a Complaint-Affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman charging Sec. Devanadera, Atty. Ocampo, Assistant City Prosecutors Joyce Martinez-Barut, Allan S. Hilbero and Edizer J. Resurrecion with (1) Grave Abuse of Authority, (2) Grave Misconduct, (3) Falsification of Public Documents, and (4) violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended, the Code of Conduct of Professional Services, and the Revised Penal Code. Orders of the Office of the Ombudsman In the first of the assailed orders dated 13 January 2012, [14] the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed petitioner's complaint. It said, "[a] judicious examination of complainant's allegations and his pieces of evidence impels us to dispense with the conduct of the necessary investigation on the herein complaint." [15] Meanwhile, in its Review Order [16] dated 25 October 2012, the Office of the Ombudsman noted that the administrative complaint against Sec. Devanadera was filed "after she had ceased to be in service." [17] Citing jurisprudence, it held that "this Office can no longer institute an administrative case against a public servant who, at the time the case was filed, is no longer with the service." [18] It further held: [Under] paragraph[s] (1) and (2), Section 20 of Republic Act 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989), x x x the Office of the Ombudsman may not conduct the necessary investigation of any administrative act or omission complained of if it believes that: (1) The complainant has an adequate remedy in another judicial or quasi-judicial body; (2) The complaint pertains to a matter outside the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman; [x x x x] Parenthetically, the complainant already availed of a legal remedy when he elevated respondent Devanadera's Resolution via Petition