Antonino v. Clemente

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 241667. November 28, 2018.]

GLORIA ERA H. ANTONINO, petitioner, vs.ATTY. PAUL ELMER M. CLEMENTE, DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR VISAYAS; ATTY. CARLA JURIS NARVIOS-TANCO, ASSISTANT OMBUDSMAN FOR VISAYAS; ATTY. JANE AGUILAR, DIRECTOR, PIAAPB-B; ATTY. MICHAEL MERNADO, JR., GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER III; AND ARACELI B. DUHAYLUNGSOD, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 28, 2018, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 241667 (Gloria Era H. Antonino v. Atty. Paul Elmer M. Clemente, Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas; Atty. Carla Juris Narvios-Tanco, Assistant Ombudsman for Visayas; Atty. Jane Aguilar, Director, PIAAPB-B; Atty. Michael Mernado, Jr., Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer III; and Araceli B. Duhaylungsod) — Before the Court is a petition for certiorari, 1 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, filed by Gloria Era H. Antonino (petitioner), alleging that the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Resolution, 2 dated March 16, 2017, and the Joint Order, 3 dated April 10, 2018. The Ombudsman found probable cause against petitioner to file an information for violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713. 4

The case stemmed from a complaint for violation of R.A. No. 3019 5 and R.A. No. 6713 filed by respondent Araceli B. Duhaylungsod (Duhaylungsod), proprietress of Angelland Fruits and Vegetables/Angelland General Merchandise, against petitioner, a former member of the Special Investigation Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), Revenue Regional No. 13, Cebu City.

In her complaint, Duhaylungsod alleged that petitioner tried to solicit and extort money from her in connection with a tax evasion case filed against her before the Department of Justice in Manila. Duhaylungsod narrated that petitioner convinced her to secure the services of a certain Atty. Ricardo Boligao, Jr. (Atty. Boligao) for the dismissal of her tax evasion case. Petitioner and Atty. Boligao solicited P780,000.00 in exchange for such services. 6 SDAaTC

Petitioner denied the charges. She contended that the BIR had already acquired jurisdiction over the issues Duhaylungsod raised by requiring her to submit an explanation on the alleged extortion and robbery, to the exclusion of the Ombudsman. Petitioner pointed out the discrepancy between the complaint and the counter-affidavit in the tax evasion case. In the complaint, Duhaylungsod alleged that she was introduced to Atty. Boligao who offered his services for P780,000.00 in exchange for the dismissal of the tax evasion case. In the counter-affidavit, Duhaylungsod alleged that petitioner received the amount of P50,000.00 she had deposited to the latter's bank account. Petitioner asserted that she never solicited any amount and alleged that Duhaylungsod unilaterally and without her knowledge deposited P50,000.00 to her account to implicate her. When she learned, through the counter-affidavit, that P50,000.00 was deposited to her account, she wrote to Duhaylungsod asking her to withdraw it but the latter did not do so. Thus, she secured a manager's check in favor of Duhaylungsod and mailed it to her. She further maintained that as far as the Run After Tax Evaders (RATE) Program is concerned, all information sourced from third parties and from access letters available to the investigators may be used by them to draw up a report; which she did in Duhaylungsod's case. 7

The Ombudsman found probable cause to indict petitioner for violation of Section 7 (d) of R.A. No. 6713. Petitioner clearly admitted that she had received P50,000.00 which was deposited to her personal account. The Ombudsman did not find credible the defense of petitioner. It said it was doubtful that Duhaylungsod could stealthily acquire the details of petitioner's USPFI payroll account during one of their meetings. The only logical explanation for Duhaylungsod's being able to get such data was that petitioner had given it to her, with the deliberate intent to solicit money in exchange for a favorable intervention in the tax evasion case. 8

Petitioner now comes before this Court. She alleges that the Ombudsman misinterpreted the facts of the case, inserting suppositions not alleged or not supported by the complaint or allegations of Duhaylungsod. 9

After a careful review of the arguments, the Court dismisses the petition for its failure to sufficiently show that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in the challenged Resolution and Joint Order.

The Ombudsman's appreciation of facts to arrive at a finding of probable cause is not cognizable by this Court, especially in a petition for certiorari such as in the instant case. 10 The Court has adopted a policy of non-interference in the Ombudsman's exercise of its constitutionally mandated powers; and will come only in cases where there has been grave abuse in the exercise of the latter's discretion. 11 Here, grave abuse of discretion has not been shown.

The determination of the existence of probable cause is a factual matter that requires probing into the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged is guilty of the crime for which he or she will be prosecuted. It is based on opinion and reasonable belief. In determining probable cause, the average person weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he or she has no technical knowledge. 12

Since this Court is not a trier of facts, it would be more prudent to defer to the sound judgment of the Ombudsman who is in a better position to make a prima facie assessment of the presence of the violation. Besides, the issue raised by the petitioner is a matter of defense which can be ventilated in a full-blown trial on the merits. acEHCD

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. (Peralta, J., on official leave; Leonen, J., Acting Chairperson)

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-11.

2.Id. at 91-99.

3.Id. at 106-111.

4. Code of Conduct of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (1989).

5. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (1960).

6.Rollo, pp. 15-21.

7.Id. at 47-60.

8.Id. at 91-99.

9.Id. at 7.

10. See Joson v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., 784 Phil. 172, 189 (2016); Kalalo v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., 633 Phil. 160, 169 (2010); Cruz, Jr. v. People, et al., 303 Phil. 462, 474 (1994).

11. See Brito v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, et al., 554 Phil. 112, 126-127 (2007).

12. Estrada v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., G.R. Nos. 212761-62, 213473-74 & 213538-39, July 31, 2018.