Gonzales v. Office of the Ombudsman
This is an administrative case, Gonzales v. Office of the Ombudsman, decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on August 13, 2018. The Court dismissed the petition filed by Belinda A. Gonzales, former Undersecretary of the Department of Agriculture, who sought to reverse the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause for the crime of Perjury. The Ombudsman found that Gonzales failed to explain the discrepancy between the actual purchase price of a property and the amount she declared as its acquisition cost in her 2005 and 2006 Sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth. The Supreme Court held that the Ombudsman did not gravely abuse its discretion in finding probable cause against Gonzales, and that Gonzales' claim of good faith is a matter of defense to be ventilated during trial.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 231965. August 13, 2018.]
BELINDA A. GONZALES, FORMER UNDERSECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, petitioner, vs.OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS AGENT, HELEN M. ACUÑA-SYKIOCO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 August 2018which reads as follows: aICcHA
"G.R. No. 231965 (Belinda A. Gonzales, former Undersecretary, Department of Agriculture v. Office of the Ombudsman, Field Investigation Office, represented by its agent, Helen M. Acuña-Sykioco)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition 1 for failure of petitioner Belinda A. Gonzales (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the respondent Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) gravely abused its discretion in issuing its May 20, 2016 Resolution 2 and December 28, 2016 Order 3 in OMB-C-C-16-0051, finding probable cause to indict petitioner for the crime of Perjury.
No grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the Ombudsman in finding probable cause against petitioner for the crime of Perjury, considering her apparent failure to explain the discrepancy in the actual purchase price of the subject property and the amount she declared as acquisition cost thereof in her 2005 and 2006 Sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth. 4 It is settled that courts do not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers without good and compelling reasons to indicate otherwise. 5 Moreover, it should be emphasized that petitioner's claim of good faith is a matter of defense, the merits of which are best ventilated during trial. 6
SO ORDERED." (CAGUIOA, J., on official leave) EHaASD
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-17.
2.Id. at 38-44. Signed by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer III Helen M. Acuña-Sykioco and approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales.
3.Id. at 21-24.
4. See id. at 40-41.
5.Angeles v. Gutierrez, 685 Phil. 183, 194 (2012). See also Agdeppa v. Ombudsman, 734 Phil. 1, 36-37 (2014).
6. See Andres v. Cuevas, 499 Phil. 36, 49 (2005); citation omitted.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU