CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS (2013 2014)
TRANQUIL SALVADOR
G.R. No. 147097 June 5, 2009
LAZATIN v. DESIERTO
Plaintiffs: Carmelo F. Lazatin, Marino A. Morales, Teodoro L. David and
Angelito A. Pelayo
Defendant: Hon. Aniano A. Desierto as Ombudsman, and
Sandiganbayan, Third Division
CASE: Petitioners were accused of violation of Article 220 of the RPC
and R.A. No. 3019. After a premilinary investigation, it was
recommended that they be prosecuted. The Sandiganbayan, however,
ordered a re-evaluation of the case. Subsequently the Office of the
Special Prosecutor (which is under the Office of the Ombudsman by
virtue of R.A. No. 6770) recommended that the case be dismissed. The
Office of Legal Affairs on the other hand recommended the prosecution.
The Ombudsman adopted the OLA recommendation, which the
petitioners assert is beyond his jurisdiction because the Constitution
meant for the OSP to be independent from the Ombudsman, and
therefore the Obudsman has no power to prosecute.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution allows the Legislative to
grant the Ombudsman additional powers, including the power to
investigate which was done through R.A. No. 6770. Thus, the
Ombudsman was acting within its powers to prosecute petitioners. Also,
petitioners cannot question the evaluation of evidence made by
Ombudsman in the Supreme Court because Certiorari will not be issued
to cure errors of the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence of the
parties, or its conclusions anchored on the said findings and its
conclusions of law. Petitioners failed to prove that the Ombudsman
acted with grave abuse of discretion.
Castelo Chan-Gonzaga Evardone Gacutan Gana Gutierrez Lopez Miclat Mercado Sales Tan Valdez Varela
ATTY.
DOCTRINE/APPLICATION:
The Ombudsman has been granted by Legislature the power to
prosecute, in line with the Constitution.
Certiorari is a remedy meant to correct only errors of
jurisdiction, not errors of judgment.
BACKGROUND:
July 22, 1998 the Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau of the
Office of the Ombudsman filed a Complaint Affidavit charting
petitioners with Illegal use of llegal Use of Public Funds as
defined and penalized under Article 220 of the Revised Penal
Code and violation of Section 3, paragraphs (a) and (e) of
Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act),
as amended.
The complaint alleged there were irregularities in the use of
that then Congressman Carmelo F. Lazatin of his Countrywide
Development Fund (CDF) for 1996. With the help of his co-
petitioners, Lazatin was able to claim 18 checks amounting to
P4,868,277.08 and convert them into cash.
May 29, 2000 The Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation
Bureau (EPIB) issued a Resolution (and eventually approved by
the Ombudsman) recommending the filing of 14 counts each of
malversation against petitioners in the Sandiganbayan.
o The Sandiganbayan ordered re-evaluation of the case.
September 18, 2000 The Office of Special Prosecutor (OSP)
Resolution recommended the dismissal of the case for lack or
insufficiency of evidence.
October 24, 2000 The Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) issued a
memorandum after being ordered by the Ombudsman to
review the OSP resolution. The OLA memorandum
recommended the OSP resolution be disapproved the OSP be
directed to proceed with the trial of the case.
October 27, 2000 The Ombudsman adopted the OLA
Memorandum, and the cases returned to the Sandiganbayan.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS (2013 2014)
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED:
1. Whether or not the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of
discretion or acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction.
2. Whether or not the questioned resolution was based on
misapprehension of facts, speculations, surmises and
conjectures
RESOLUTIONS AND ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1 Whether or not the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of
discretion or acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction NO. The
OSP has been placed under the Office of the Ombudsman by virtue of
R.A. No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989), and as such is under the
supervision and control of the Ombudsman.
Major Point 1: The Constitution does not proscribe the Legislature from
granting the Ombudsman more powers, nor from placing the OSP under
the Office of the Ombudsman.
Petitioners assert that the Ombudsman has no authority to
overturn the OSPs resolution dismissing the cases against
petitioners because the Constitution grants the Ombudsman
only with the power to watch, investigate and recommend the
filing of proper cases against erring officials, but it was not
granted the power to prosecute.
Acop v. Office of the Ombudsman
o The Court held that giving prosecutorial powers to the
Ombudsman is in accordance with the Constitution as
paragraph 8, Section 13, Article XI provides that the
Ombudsman shall exercise such other functions or
duties as may be provided by law.
o Congress has the power to place the OSP under the
Office of the Ombudsman. In the same vein, Congress
may remove some of the powers granted to the
Tanodbayan by P.D. No. 1630 and transfer them to the
Ombudsman, or grant the Office of the Special
Castelo Chan-Gonzaga Evardone Gacutan Gana Gutierrez Lopez Miclat Mercado Sales Tan Valdez Varela
ATTY. TRANQUIL SALVADOR
Prosecutor such other powers and functions and duties
as Congress may deem fit and wise.
Major Point 2: R.A. No. 6770 is constitutional. The principle of stare
decisis cannot be set aside.
Petitioners maintain that R.A. No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act
of 1989), which made the OSP an organic component of the
Office of the Ombudsman, should be struck down for being
unconstitutional.
The doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere (to adhere to
precedents and not to unsettle things which are established) is
embodied in Article 8 of the Civil Code1 of the Philippines
o Fermin v. People The doctrine of stare decisis is
based on the principle that once a question of law has
been examined and decided, it should be deemed
settled and closed to further argument.
o Chinese Young Men's Christian Association of the
Philippine Islands v. Remington Steel Corporation
Stare decisis simply means that for the sake of certainty,
a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to
those that follow if the facts are substantially the same,
even though the parties may be different. It proceeds
from the first principle of justice that, absent any
powerful countervailing considerations, like cases ought
to be decided alike.
Petitioners have not shown any strong, compelling reason to
convince the Court that the doctrine of stare decisis should not
be applied to this case.
o They have not successfully demonstrated how or why it
would be grave abuse of discretion for the Ombudsman,
who has been validly conferred by law with the power
of control and supervision over the OSP, to disapprove
or overturn any resolution issued by the latter.
1Article 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a
part of the legal system of the Philippines.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS (2013 2014) ATTY. TRANQUIL SALVADOR

Ombudsman's exercise of power must have been done in an

ISSUE 2 Whether or not the questioned resolution was based on arbitrary or despotic manner which must be so patent and gross
misapprehension of facts, speculations, surmises and conjectures. as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal
The question is really whether the Ombudsman correctly ruled that to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of
there was enough evidence to support a finding of probable cause. This law.
Court cannot overturn the Ombudsman finding of probable cause
absent any proof that it acted with grave abuse of discretion. FINAL VERDICT: The Ombudsman was acting in accordance with R.A.
No. 6770 and properly exercised its power of control and supervision
Major Point 1: Certiorari is a remedy meant to correct only errors of over the OSP when it disapproved the Resolution dated September 18,
jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. 2000.
First Corporation v. Former Sixth Division of the Court of
Appeals Certiorari proceedings do not include an inquiry as NO SEPARATE OPINIONS
to the correctness of the evaluation of evidence. An error of
judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of
its jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is one where the act
complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, which is
tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is
correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. It is not
for this Court to re-examine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate
the credibility of the witnesses or substitute the findings of fact
of the court a quo.

Major Point 2: The Court cannot interfere with the Ombudsmans

exercise of his investigatory and prosecutor powers as long as his ruling
are supported by substantial evidence, and absent any proof of grave
abuse of discretion
Presidential Ad Hoc Fact- Finding Committee on Behest Loans v.
Desierto The Ombudsman has wide latitude in exercising his
powers and is free from intervention from the three branches of
government. This is to ensure that his Office is insulated from
any outside pressure and improper influence.
Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Desierto
Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The

Castelo Chan-Gonzaga Evardone Gacutan Gana Gutierrez Lopez Miclat Mercado Sales Tan Valdez Varela