G.R. No. 159949 - VADM. MARIANO J. DUMANGCAS, JR., VS. HON. SIMEON V. MARCELO, OMBUDSMAN, DENNIS M. VILLAIGNACIO, SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, ROBERT E. KALLOS, DEPUTY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, HUMPHREY T. MONTEROSO, DIRECTOR, PROSECUTION BUREAU AND DANILO S. LOPEZ, SPECIAL PROSECUTION OFFICER III, OFFICE OF THE O

Ruling

accordingly, informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan. The cases were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 27234-27429 and were raffled to the third division thereof. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation before the Sandiganbayan which was granted by the said court. In an order dated 25 November 2002, Special Prosecution Officer II Cicero D. Jurado, Jr. recommended the dismissal of Criminal Case Nos. 27234-27429. Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo disapproved the said recommendation and affirmed the 12 December 2001 memorandum recommending the filing of informations against, among other accused, petitioner, viz: The recommended dismissal of the charges against respondents VAdm. Dumangcas, et al. is denied, while the implied recommended continuation of the prosecution of respondents Capt. Batestil, et al. is approved. Otherwise stated, the Resolution dated Dec. 12, 2001 (approved on Mar. 1, 2002) is affirmed in toto , there being no cogent reason to set aside or modify the same. [8] Aggrieved, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. The said motion was denied in an order dated 17 September 2003. Hence, the instant petition. The sole issue in this petition is whether or not the Ombudsman has acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in setting aside the recommendation of SPO Cicero D. Jurado, Jr. to dismiss the charges against petitioner in Criminal Case Nos. 27234-27429. Petitioner contends that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause against him. He asserts that there exists no probable cause to indict him as shown by the foregoing proceedings: first, in a case filed in OMB-4-97-0965 involving P53 million, the same was dismissed by the Office of the Ombudsman on the ground that the COA auditors made the admission that an error was committed in the conduct of their audit; second, in Criminal Case Nos. 25362-25385 (another separate cases filed before the Sandiganbayan), the charges against him were dropped as there was no probable cause to include him in the said cases. Petitioner argues that since the foregoing proceedings were based on SAO Report No. 92-128 in the same manner as the instant indictments, then to hold him liable of the latter is baseless considering his exculpation in the former. He likewise bewails the manner in which the Ombudsman resolved the motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation by merely making a marginal note. Said marginal note which does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based offends his right to due process. On the other hand, the Ombudsman, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor maintains that the present indictments against petitioner, i.e ., Criminal Case Nos. 27234-27429 have reference to COA SAO Report No. 92-128 contrary to the asseveration of the petitioner. The Ombudsman points out that SAO Report No. 92-128 is not the subject of any of the cases in the instant indi