G.R. Nos. 169359-61 - MARCELO G. GANADEN, OSCAR B. MINA, JOSE M. BAUTISTA AND ERNESTO H. NARCISO, JR., VS. HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND ROBERT K. HUMIWAT. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered , it is hereby recommended that respondents GANADEN, NARCISO and BAUTISTA be charged with Violation of Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. 3019. Likewise, GANADEN and MINA should also be charged with Violation of Sec. 3 (b) of R.A. 3019 before the proper court. However, as to other respondents, finding no sufficient evidence to include them in the information, case is hereby DISMISSED. SO RESOLVED. [7] Petitioners sought reconsideration of the resolution but their motion was denied in an Order [8] dated August 21, 2003. They subsequently filed a motion for reinvestigation and reopening but said motion was also denied in an Order [9] dated April 26, 2005. Undaunted, petitioners filed a second motion for reconsideration, which, however, was likewise denied by the Ombudsman for lack of merit in an Order [10] dated July 7, 2005. Meanwhile, considering the denial by the Ombudsman of petitioners' motion for reconsideration on August 21, 2003, the Regional Trial Court, Branch III, of Tuguegarao City issued an Order [11] on July 11, 2005 setting petitioners' arraignment for September 16, 2005 at 8:30 in the morning. On September 7, 2005, petitioners filed with this Court the present petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction. [12] Petitioners pray that the Court annul the May 22, 2003 Joint Resolution, the August 21, 2003 and April 26, 2005 Orders and the July 7, 2005 Joint Order of the Office of the Ombudsman and order the dismissal of the criminal complaints against them for lack of merit. Petitioners argue that the complaints filed against them are purely intended for harassment and done in retaliation to the reorganization petitioner Ganaden did in 1999 when he was still the NPC Area Manager in District IV-Cagayan Valley Area. They believe that the complaint is a part of a bigger persecution plan against them, pointing out that it is just one of more than thirty-four (34) pending complaints filed against them in different courts, prosecution offices, and administrative agencies. [13] Petitioners state that the complaint only relies on self-serving testimonies of persons who are motivated by vengeance and ill will. Petitioners aver that the Office of the Ombudsman blatantly disregarded the December 5, 2001 Comprehensive Internal Audit Report which would show that the complaints filed lack factual and legal basis. Also, petitioners point out that the Ombudsman disregarded several affidavits of workers who performed the actual hauling of soil to prove that actual hauling was indeed done. Petitioners contend that by reason of these evidentiary oversights, the Office of the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. [14] Petitioners further question the Ombudsman's finding of conspiracy among them. [15] They argue that the findings of the Ombudsman are mere conclusions of law unsupported by any evidence that petitio