!"#$#%&' )"*!+,-"+ ,#.

+/0/ 12345 6 23478 &009: 0"&%;-#' /&'<&,*"

"&!=+''+ &%%+ .-0#+""+>
G.k. No. 147097 Iune S, 2009

LA2A1IN v. DLSILk1C

lalnLlffs: Carmelo l. LazaLln, Marlno A. Morales, 1eodoro L. uavld and
AngellLo A. elayo

uefendanL: Pon. Anlano A. ueslerLo as Cmbudsman, and
Sandlganbayan, 1hlrd ulvlslon

CASL: eLlLloners were accused of vlolaLlon of Art|c|e 220 of the kC
and k.A. No. 3019. AfLer a premlllnary lnvesLlgaLlon, lL was
recommended LhaL Lhey be prosecuLed. 1he Sandlganbayan, however,
ordered a re-evaluaLlon of Lhe case. SubsequenLly Lhe Cfflce of Lhe
Speclal rosecuLor (whlch ls under Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman by
vlrLue of k.A. No. 6770) recommended LhaL Lhe case be dlsmlssed. 1he
Cfflce of Legal Affalrs on Lhe oLher hand recommended Lhe prosecuLlon.
1he Cmbudsman adopLed Lhe CLA recommendaLlon, whlch Lhe
peLlLloners asserL ls beyond hls [urlsdlcLlon because Lhe ConsLlLuLlon
meanL for Lhe CS Lo be lndependenL from Lhe Cmbudsman, and
Lherefore Lhe Cbudsman has no power Lo prosecuLe.

1he Supreme CourL ruled LhaL Lhe ConsLlLuLlon allows Lhe LeglslaLlve Lo
granL Lhe Cmbudsman addlLlonal powers, lncludlng Lhe power Lo
lnvesLlgaLe - whlch was done Lhrough k.A. No. 6770. 1hus, Lhe
Cmbudsman was acLlng wlLhln lLs powers Lo prosecuLe peLlLloners. Also,
peLlLloners cannoL quesLlon Lhe evaluaLlon of evldence made by
Cmbudsman ln Lhe Supreme CourL because CerLlorarl wlll noL be lssued
Lo cure errors of Lhe Lrlal courL ln lLs appreclaLlon of Lhe evldence of Lhe
parLles, or lLs concluslons anchored on Lhe sald flndlngs and lLs
concluslons of law. eLlLloners falled Lo prove LhaL Lhe Cmbudsman
acLed wlLh grave abuse of dlscreLlon.



uCC18lnL/ALlCA1lCn:
1he Cmbudsman has been granLed by LeglslaLure Lhe power Lo
prosecuLe, ln llne wlLh Lhe ConsLlLuLlon.
!"#$%&#'#% ls a remedy meanL Lo correcL only errors of
[urlsdlcLlon, noL errors of [udgmenL.

8ACkGkCUND:
! !uly 22, 1998 ! Lhe lacL-llndlng and lnLelllgence 8ureau of Lhe
Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman flled a ComplalnL AffldavlL charLlng
peLlLloners wlLh lllegal use of llegal use of ubllc lunds as
deflned and penallzed under Art|c|e 220 of the kev|sed ena|
Code and vlolaLlon of Sect|on 3, paragraphs (a) and (e) of
kepub||c Act No. 3019 (Ant|-Graft and Corrupt ract|ces Act),
as amended.
! 1he complalnL alleged Lhere were lrregularlLles ln Lhe use of
LhaL Lhen Congressman Carmelo l. LazaLln of hls CounLrywlde
uevelopmenL lund (Cul) for 1996. WlLh Lhe help of hls co-
peLlLloners, LazaLln was able Lo clalm 18 checks amounLlng Lo
4,868,277.08 and converL Lhem lnLo cash.
! May 29, 2000 ! 1he LvaluaLlon and rellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon
8ureau (Ll8) lssued a 8esoluLlon (and evenLually approved by
Lhe Cmbudsman) recommendlng Lhe flllng of 14 counLs each of
malversaLlon agalnsL peLlLloners ln Lhe Sandlganbayan.
o 1he Sandlganbayan ordered re-evaluaLlon of Lhe case.
! SepLember 18, 2000 ! 1he Cfflce of Speclal rosecuLor (CS)
8esoluLlon recommended Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe case for lack or
lnsufflclency of evldence.
! CcLober 24, 2000 ! 1he Cfflce of Legal Affalrs (CLA) lssued a
memorandum afLer belng ordered by Lhe Cmbudsman Lo
revlew Lhe CS resoluLlon. 1he CLA memorandum
recommended Lhe CS resoluLlon be dlsapproved Lhe CS be
dlrecLed Lo proceed wlLh Lhe Lrlal of Lhe case.
! CcLober 27, 2000 ! 1he Cmbudsman adopLed Lhe CLA
Memorandum, and Lhe cases reLurned Lo Lhe Sandlganbayan.

!"#$#%&' )"*!+,-"+ ,#.+/0/ 12345 6 23478 &009: 0"&%;-#' /&'<&,*"


"&!=+''+ &%%+ .-0#+""+>
ISSULS 1C 8L kLSCLVLD:
1. WheLher or noL Lhe Cmbudsman acLed wlLh grave abuse of
dlscreLlon or acLed wlLhouL or ln excess of hls [urlsdlcLlon.
2. WheLher or noL Lhe quesLloned resoluLlon was based on
mlsapprehenslon of facLs, speculaLlons, surmlses and
con[ecLures

kLSCLU1ICNS AND AkGUMLN1S
ISSUL 1 ! WheLher or noL Lhe Cmbudsman acLed wlLh grave abuse of
dlscreLlon or acLed wlLhouL or ln excess of hls [urlsdlcLlon ! nC. 1he
CS has been placed under Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman by vlrLue of
k.A. No. 6770 (Cmbudsman Act of 1989), and as such ls under Lhe
supervlslon and conLrol of Lhe Cmbudsman.

Ma[or olnL 1: 1he ConsLlLuLlon does noL proscrlbe Lhe LeglslaLure from
granLlng Lhe Cmbudsman more powers, nor from placlng Lhe CS under
Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman.
eLlLloners asserL LhaL Lhe Cmbudsman has no auLhorlLy Lo
overLurn Lhe CS's resoluLlon dlsmlsslng Lhe cases agalnsL
peLlLloners because Lhe ConsLlLuLlon granLs Lhe Cmbudsman
only wlLh Lhe power Lo waLch, lnvesLlgaLe and recommend Lhe
flllng of proper cases agalnsL errlng offlclals, buL lL was noL
granLed Lhe power Lo prosecuLe.
Acop v. Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman
o 1he CourL held LhaL glvlng prosecuLorlal powers Lo Lhe
Cmbudsman ls ln accordance wlLh Lhe Const|tut|on as
paragraph 8, Sect|on 13, Art|c|e kI provldes LhaL Lhe
Cmbudsman shall exerclse such oLher funcLlons or
duLles as may be provlded by law."
o Congress has Lhe power Lo place Lhe CS under Lhe
Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman. ln Lhe same veln, Congress
may remove some of Lhe powers granLed Lo Lhe
1anodbayan by .D. No. 1630 and Lransfer Lhem Lo Lhe
Cmbudsman, or granL Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Speclal
rosecuLor such oLher powers and funcLlons and duLles
as Congress may deem flL and wlse.

Ma[or olnL 2: k.A. No. 6770 ls consLlLuLlonal. 1he prlnclple of ($'#"
*"+%(%( cannoL be seL aslde.
eLlLloners malnLaln LhaL k.A. No. 6770 (1he Cmbudsman Act
of 1989), whlch made Lhe CS an organlc componenL of Lhe
Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman, should be sLruck down for belng
unconsLlLuLlonal.
1he docLrlne of sLare declsls eL non quleLa movere (Lo adhere Lo
precedenLs and noL Lo unseLLle Lhlngs whlch are esLabllshed) ls
embodled ln Art|c|e 8 of the C|v|| Code
1
of Lhe hlllpplnes
o lermln v. eople ! 1he docLrlne of sLare declsls ls
based on Lhe prlnclple LhaL once a quesLlon of law has
been examlned and declded, lL should be deemed
seLLled and closed Lo furLher argumenL.
o Chlnese ?oung Men's ChrlsLlan AssoclaLlon of Lhe
hlllpplne lslands v. 8emlngLon SLeel CorporaLlon !
SLare declsls slmply means LhaL for Lhe sake of cerLalnLy,
a concluslon reached ln one case should be applled Lo
Lhose LhaL follow lf Lhe facLs are subsLanLlally Lhe same,
even Lhough Lhe parLles may be dlfferenL. lL proceeds
from Lhe flrsL prlnclple of [usLlce LhaL, absenL any
powerful counLervalllng conslderaLlons, llke cases oughL
Lo be declded allke.
eLlLloners have noL shown any sLrong, compelllng reason Lo
convlnce Lhe CourL LhaL Lhe docLrlne of sLare declsls should noL
be applled Lo Lhls case.
o 1hey have noL successfully demonsLraLed how or why lL
would be grave abuse of dlscreLlon for Lhe Cmbudsman,
who has been valldly conferred by law wlLh Lhe power
of conLrol and supervlslon over Lhe CS, Lo dlsapprove
or overLurn any resoluLlon lssued by Lhe laLLer.

4
&?@ABCD E: FGHABAIC HDBAJAKLJ IMMCNALO K? AL@D?M?D@ALO @PD CIQJ K? @PD !KLJ@A@G@AKL JPICC RK?S I
MI?@ KR @PD CDOIC JNJ@DS KR @PD )PACAMMALDJ:
!"#$#%&' )"*!+,-"+ ,#.+/0/ 12345 6 23478 &009: 0"&%;-#' /&'<&,*"


"&!=+''+ &%%+ .-0#+""+>

ISSUL 2 ! WheLher or noL Lhe quesLloned resoluLlon was based on
mlsapprehenslon of facLs, speculaLlons, surmlses and con[ecLures. !
1he quesLlon ls really wheLher Lhe Cmbudsman correcLly ruled LhaL
Lhere was enough evldence Lo supporL a flndlng of probable cause. 1hls
CourL cannoL overLurn Lhe Cmbudsman flndlng of probable cause
absenL any proof LhaL lL acLed wlLh grave abuse of dlscreLlon.

Ma[or olnL 1: !"#$%&#'#% ls a remedy meanL Lo correcL only errors of
[urlsdlcLlon, noL errors of [udgmenL.
llrsL CorporaLlon v. lormer SlxLh ulvlslon of Lhe CourL of
Appeals ! CerLlorarl proceedlngs do noL lnclude an lnqulry as
Lo Lhe correcLness of Lhe evaluaLlon of evldence. An error of
[udgment ls one whlch Lhe courL may commlL ln Lhe exerclse of
lLs [urlsdlcLlon. An error of [ur|sd|ct|on ls one where Lhe acL
complalned of was lssued by Lhe courL wlLhouL or ln excess of
[urlsdlcLlon, or wlLh grave abuse of dlscreLlon, whlch ls
LanLamounL Lo lack or ln excess of [urlsdlcLlon and whlch error ls
correcLlble only by Lhe exLraordlnary wrlL of cerLlorarl. lL ls noL
for Lhls CourL Lo re-examlne confllcLlng evldence, re-evaluaLe
Lhe credlblllLy of Lhe wlLnesses or subsLlLuLe Lhe flndlngs of facL
of Lhe courL a quo.

Ma[or olnL 2: 1he CourL cannoL lnLerfere wlLh Lhe Cmbudsman's
exerclse of hls lnvesLlgaLory and prosecuLor powers as long as hls rullng
are supporLed by subsLanLlal evldence, and absenL any proof of grave
abuse of dlscreLlon
resldenLlal Ad Poc lacL- llndlng CommlLLee on 8ehesL Loans v.
ueslerLo ! 1he Cmbudsman has wlde laLlLude ln exerclslng hls
powers and ls free from lnLervenLlon from Lhe Lhree branches of
governmenL. 1hls ls Lo ensure LhaL hls Cfflce ls lnsulaLed from
any ouLslde pressure and lmproper lnfluence.
resldenLlal Commlsslon on Cood CovernmenL v. ueslerLo !
Crave abuse of dlscreLlon lmplles a caprlclous and whlmslcal
exerclse of [udgmenL LanLamounL Lo lack of [urlsdlcLlon. 1he
Cmbudsman's exerclse of power musL have been done ln an
arblLrary or despoLlc manner whlch musL be so paLenL and gross
as Lo amounL Lo an evaslon of a poslLlve duLy or a vlrLual refusal
Lo perform Lhe duLy en[olned or Lo acL aL all ln conLemplaLlon of
law.

IINAL VLkDIC1: 1he Cmbudsman was acLlng ln accordance wlLh k.A.
No. 6770 and properly exerclsed lLs power of conLrol and supervlslon
over Lhe CS when lL dlsapproved Lhe 8esoluLlon daLed SepLember 18,
2000.

NC SLAkA1L CINICNS