Office of the Ombudsman v. Ocdinaria

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 225026. July 28, 2021.]

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, petitioner,vs. JESUS S. OCDINARIA, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated July 28, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 225026 (Office of the Ombudsman,Petitioner,v. Jesus S. Ocdinaria,Respondent.) — This resolves the Petition for Review (Petition) 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set aside the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 2 dated 11 May 2015 and Resolution 3 dated 12 May 2016 denying the Motion for Reconsideration in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 08044. The CA modified the Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) dated 18 April 2007 in OMB-V-A-05-0572-L, dismissing the charges for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service against Jesus S. Ocdinaria (Ocdinaria), while affirming the same charge against Ronilo V. Adaracho (Adaracho).

Antecedents

This case stemmed from a complaint filed by Aida Pontero (Aida) against respondent Ocdinaria, Assistant City Prosecutor, and Adaracho, Process Server, both of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Bacolod City, and SPO1 Nelson M. Grijaldo (SPO1 Grijaldo) of the Bacolod City Police Station for conspiring to extort from her the amount of Php30,000.00, in exchange for the dismissal of the case filed against her son, Edgardo Pontero (Edgardo). 4

At 1:15 p.m. of December 21, 2004, Edgardo was apprehended by police officers and was brought to the police station pending the filing of charges against him for violation of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 5 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Bacolod City. The next morning, Aida visited her son at the police station. At the entrance of the police station, she was approached by a certain Gergie Divinagracia, who offered to negotiate for Edgardo's release and the dismissal of the charges against him in exchange for Php30,000.00, allegedly to pay off SPO1 Grijaldo and a certain Bacolod City Prosecutor. 6

To raise funds for bribe money, Edgardo instructed Aida to sell his house. After the house was sold for Php70,000.00, Aida went to see SPO1 Grijaldo at the police station and told him they would pay. He then instructed her to wait for a driver (later identified as Adaracho) to pick her up and bring her to the residence of an unnamed individual who would facilitate the release of Edgardo. 7

Adaracho then soon arrived in an owner-type jeepney to pick up Aida. En route, Adaracho inquired about the money and Aida handed him Php30,000.00. Upon reaching the corner of L.B. Parreno Street, Bacolod City, Adaracho told Aida to alight and wait. Then he drove toward and old wooden two-storey house enclosed by a fence. When he returned, he gave Aida some documents, including a subpoena signed by Prosecutor Ocdinaria. 8

They went back to the Bacolod City Police Station, where SPO1 Grijaldo informed Aida that the release of Edgardo was already being facilitated. Not long after, the she was made to sign the police station's logbook and Edgardo was released. 9

Sometime in May 2005, however, Aida was surprised when Edgardo was arrested for the second time. She later learned that an information for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 was filed against Edgardo based on the same charges for which he was previously arrested. Thus, Aida alleged that the act of Prosecutor Ocdinaria of intervening in the investigation of the charges filed against her son was highly irregular since he was not assigned to handle inquest cases on the date of her son's arrest. 10 CAIHTE

Ocdinaria denied the charges against him. He countered that he was never a party to any negotiation for the release of Edgardo and had neither talked to him nor to Aida, much less received any bribe money from them. He averred that he was the officer-in-charge of the Bacolod City Prosecutor's Office on 23 December 2004, and thus had authority to reverse or set aside the resolution of Inquest Prosecutor Eduardo Sayson. Ocdinaria also pointed out that Aida admitted she did not see him that at the time of the alleged payment of the bribe. He averred that the house of Edgardo, as seen in the Deed of Sale, was sold on 26 December 2004, while he issued the subject Minute Resolution on 23 December 2004, belying Aida's allegation that she sold the house to raise bribe money for the release of her son. 11

Ruling of the OMB

The OMB, in its 18 April 2007 Decision, found sufficient evidence to hold Ocdinaria and Adaracho administratively liable for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and were meted the penalty of dismissal from the service with all its accessory penalties. The case against SPO1 Grijaldo, on the other hand, was dismissed for lack of merit. Ocdinaria and Adaracho moved for reconsideration of the Decision, but the same was denied in an Order dated September 20, 2010, prompting them to seek review before the CA. 12

Ruling of the CA

In its assailed Decision, the CA affirmed the OMB's finding of Grave Misconduct as to Adaracho, but dismissed the same charge against Ocdinaria. The CA found nothing irregular in Ocdinaria's act of issuing the Minute Resolution that ordered the release of Edgardo from detention. Likewise, as officer-in-charge, Ocdinaria had the power to review, approve, or disapprove the resolution of his subordinates, such as the inquest prosecutor. The issuance of the Minute Resolution was in accordance with the 2008 Revised Manual for Prosecutors in which the recommendation of the inquest officer is subject to the approval of their higher rank official, and that to approve or disapprove the recommendation of the inquest officer is a discretionary act conferred by law. Finally, the CA found no substantial evidence showing that Ocdinaria participated in extorting money from Edgardo. 13

The OMB filed an Omnibus Motion to Intervene and Admit Attached Motion for Partial Reconsideration with Leave of Court. The CA granted the Omnibus Motion to Intervene. However, it denied the OMB's Motion for Partial Reconsideration on May 12, 2016. 14 Thus, this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Issues

The following issues are for resolution of this Court:

(a) Whether or not the Petition raises only questions of law; and

(b) Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that there is no substantial evidence to prove Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service on the part of Ocdinaria.

Ruling of the Court

The Petition lacks merit.

The Petition raises questions of fact

"A question of fact exists 'when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts.' On the other hand, a question of law exists when the doubt or difference as to what the law is on a certain state of facts." 15 Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. 16 Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court categorically states that the petition shall only raise questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. This rule is predicated on the principle that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts; only errors of law are generally reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. 17 This rule further means that factual findings of lower courts will generally not be disturbed. 18

The OMB argues that contrary to the finding of the CA, there is substantial evidence that Ocdinaria committed Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service as to warrant his dismissal from service. It further claims that Ocdinaria conspired with Adaracho to extort money from Aida in exchange for the dismissal of the charges against Edgardo. However, to overturn the decision of the CA, the Court must undertake to review and revisit evidentiary matters to determine if there is indeed substantial evidence. Essentially, the OMB is asking this Court to examine the CA's appreciation of the evidence. This cannot be done in the present Petition for Review. DETACa

This Court is not a trier of facts. It will not entertain questions of fact as the factual findings of the appellate courts are final, binding, or conclusive upon the parties and upon this Court when supported by substantial evidence. 19

Moreover, factual findings of administrative or quasi-judicial bodies are accorded much respect by this Court as they are specialized to rule on matters falling within their jurisdiction especially when these are supported by substantial evidence. A relaxation of this rule is permissible only under specifically recognized circumstances, 20 none of which are present in this case.

As such, this instant Petition must be denied.

The CA did not err in ruling that there

Section 6, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court defines substantial evidence as "that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion." The requirement is satisfied where there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent is guilty of the act or omission complained of, even if the evidence might not be overwhelming. 21 The CA found no reasonable ground to hold Ocdinaria liable for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. We agree.

In this case, no evidence was introduced that Ocdinaria accepted or received the amount of money from Aida. Respondent denied ever meeting Ocdinaria. 22 All that was established was that Aida had given SPO1 Grijaldo Php30,000.00 and they took a drive; she was left at a street corner while the latter went into a house; when he came back, he handed her some documents, including a signed Minute Resolution. Aida herself admitted that she never knew the owner of the house, nor did she see the person who gave the documents or to whom the money was given.

Likewise, Ocdinaria's authority to issue the Minute Resolution was done in the exercise of discretionary power and the power of control over a subordinate. 23 Section 15 of the 2008 Revised Manual for Prosecutors provides that the recommendation of the inquest officer on whether to release the detained person or file the appropriate information is subject to the approval of the City or Provincial Prosecutor. Absent any evidence to show impropriety, it could not be concluded that there is irregularity on the part of Ocdinaria in issuing the Minute Resolution. The CA is correct in saying that to conclude impropriety on the basis of the exercise of a discretionary power is purely speculative and is not substantial evidence of Grave Misconduct.

In sum, no substantial evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion was shown that Ocdinaria was party to extort money from Aida or that he receive any amount from her. Due to the lack of substantial evidence, the assertion that Ocdinaria issued the Minute Resolution to facilitate the release of Edgardo Pontero for a monetary consideration is speculative. 24 Hence, there is no reasonable ground for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service against Ocdinaria.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 11 May 2015 in CA-G.R. No. CEB-SP No. 08044 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 12-27.

2. Id. at 29-41; Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco and concurred in by Associate Justices Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a member of the Court) and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi of the Special Twentieth (20th) Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.

3. Id. at 48-49.

4. Id. at 30.

5. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on 23 January 2002.

6. Rollo, p. 30.

7. Id.

8. Id. at 31.

9. Id.

10. Id.

11. Id. at 31-32.

12. Id. at 33.

13. Id. at 34-41.

14. Id. at 43-45.

15. Alburo v. People of the Philippines, 792 Phil. 876, 889 (2016) [Per J. Peralta], citing Benito v. People of the Philippines, 753 Phil. 616, 626 (2015) [Per J. Leonen]; Sesbreno v. Court of Appeals, 310 Phil. 671, 679 (1995) [Per J. Quiason]; Bernardo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101680, 07 December 1992, 216 SCRA 224, 232 (1992) [Per J. Campos].

16. See Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic of the Philippines, 717 Phil. 141 (2013) [Per J. Bersamin].

17. See Guerrero v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., G.R. No. 222523, 03 October 2018 [Per J. Peralta].

18. See Evergreen Manufacturing Corporation v. Republic of the Philippines, 817 Phil. 1048, 1057 (2017) [Per J. Carpio].

19. See Siasat v. Court of Appeals, 425 Phil. 139, 145 (2002) [Per J. Pardo].

20. See Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. Cristino, 775 Phil. 108, 130-131 (2015) [Per J. Perez].

21. See Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas v. Castro, 759 Phil. 68, 77 (2015) [Per J. Brion].

22. Rollo, p. 37.

23. Id.

24. Id. at 38.