SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 129904. March 16, 2000.]

DIRECTOR GUILLERMO T. DOMONDON , petitioner, vs . THE

HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, Second Division; HONORABLE
ANIANO A. DESIERTO, in his o cial capacity as Ombudsman;
HONORABLE FRANCISCO A. VILLA, in his capacity as Overall Deputy
Ombudsman; and LEONARDO P. TAMAYO, in his o cial capacity as
Deputy Special Prosecutor & concurrent O cer-in-Charge, O ce of
the Special Prosecutor , respondents.

Abelardo T. Domondon for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

SYNOPSIS

Several informations were led before the First and Third Divisions of the
Sandiganbayan against the petitioner and several other o cials of the Philippine National
Police (PNP) due to the discovery of a chain of irregularities within the PNP Command in
CY 1992. Petitioner led a motion for consolidation before the First Division of the
Sandiganbayan to include cases led before the Third Division. The Sandiganbayan issued
two orders, rst, for the prosecution to demonstrate the probable complicity of some of
the accused, including the petitioner, and second, which denied the petitioner's motion for
consolidation. The Special Prosecutor of the Ombudsman ordered the criminal
information amended to exclude some of the accused, but not herein petitioner. Petitioner
led a motion for reconsideration. Another Special Prosecutor recommended his
exclusion from the information, but was disapproved by the Ombudsman and the Overall
Deputy Ombudsman. Hence, this petition for certiorari and prohibition. Petitioner raised
the issue of whether there was grave abuse of discretion when the Ombudsman denied his
motion for reconsideration and his motion for consolidation. CScTED

According to the Supreme Court, petitioner herein had not shown that grave abuse
of discretion was committed when the Ombudsman decided to proceed with the
prosecution of the criminal cases against him. On the basis of their reinvestigation,
respondents herein found su cient probable cause to include petitioner in the indictment.
The courts cannot interfere with the discretion of the scal or Ombudsman to determine
the speci city and adequacy of the averments of the offense charged. Petitioner's
recourse is with the Sandiganbayan where the cases are already pending. The instant
petition was dismissed.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; CERTIORARI; GRAVE ABUSE OF

DISCRETION, DEFINED. — Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, in other words where the
power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal
hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
2. ID.; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES; COURTS CANNOT
INTERFERE WITH THE DISCRETION OF THE FISCAL OR OMBUDSMAN; EXCEPTIONS. — As
this Court stated in Ocampo, IV vs. Ombudsman, 225 SCRA 725, 729 (1993): "Well settled
is the rule that criminal prosecutions may not be restrained, either through a preliminary or
nal injunction or a writ of prohibition, except in the following instances: (1) To afford
adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; (2) When necessary for
the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; (3)
When there is a prejudicial question which is sub-judice; (4) When the acts of the o cer
are without or in excess of authority; (5) Where the prosecution is under an invalid law,
ordinance or regulation; (6) When double jeopardy is clearly apparent; (7) Where the Court
has no jurisdiction over the offense; (8) Where it is a case of persecution rather than
prosecution; (9) Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for
vengeance; (10) When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a
motion to quash on that ground has been denied; (11) Preliminary injunction has been
issued by the Supreme Court to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners."
Corollary to the foregoing rule, the courts cannot interfere with the discretion of the scal
or Ombudsman to determine the speci city and adequacy of the averments of the offense
charged. He may dismiss the complaint forthwith if he nds it to be insu cient in form or
substance or if he otherwise nds no ground to continue with the inquiry; or he may
proceed with the investigation if the complaint is, in his view, in due and proper form.
However, while the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether or not a
criminal case should be led, this Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's
action when there is an abuse of discretion, by way of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RATIONALE. — The Supreme Court reiterates that ". . . [t]his is
an exercise of the Ombudsman's powers based upon constitutional mandate and the
courts should not interfere in such exercise. The rule is based not only upon respect for the
investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the O ce of the
Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the courts will be
grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory
proceedings conducted by the O ce of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints led
before it, in much the same way that the courts will be extremely swamped if they could be
compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the scals or prosecuting
attorneys each time they decide to le an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a
private complainant."
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; OMBUDSMAN; LIMITATION ON ITS DUTY TO CONSOLIDATE
CASES. — While the Ombudsman has full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal
case should be led in the Sandiganbayan, once the case has been led with said court, it
is the Sandiganbayan, and no longer the Ombudsman, which has full control of the case so
much so that the informations may not be dismissed, or in the instant case, may not be
consolidated with other pending cases, without the approval of the said court.

DECISION

BUENA , J : p

Before this Court is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction seeking to nullify and set aside the Order 1 of
the O ce of the Special Prosecutor/Ombudsman, dated November 29, 1995, in Criminal
Case No. 20574 (OMB-AFP-CRIM-93-0047), as having been rendered with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The factual and procedural antecedents are as follows: prcd

On February and May 1994, four (4) separate informations 2 were led against
petitioner and several others before the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan, docketed as
Crim. Case No. 20185 (OMB Case No. AFP-CRIM-93-0026), Crim. Case No. 20191 (OMB
Case No. AFP-CRIM-93-0049, OMB-4-93-1476), Crim. Case No. 20192 (OMB Case No. 93-
0050, OMB-4-93-1476) and Crim. Case No. 20576 (OMB-CRIM-AFP-93-0048). 3
In May 1994, an additional information was led against petitioner and several
others before the First Division of the Sandiganbayan, docketed as Crim. Case No. 20574
(OMB-AFP-CRIM-93-0047). 4 The said case allegedly arose from a complaint led on May
11, 1993 against certain o cials of the Philippine National Police (PNP), including
petitioner, ". . . due to the discovery of a chain of irregularities within the PNP Commands in
CY 1992, ranging from the irregular issuance of Advices of Sub-Allotments, ghost
purchases/deliveries, forged payrolls up to false issuances of the combat, clothing and
individual equipment (CCIE) to the uniformed personnel of the PNP valued at
P83,600,000.00 . . . ." 5 Petitioner was included as an accused in Crim. Case No. 20574 on
account of his approval for the Chief, PNP, as then Director of the O ce of the Directorate
for Comptrollership (ODC), of the release of Advice of Allotment (ASAs) Nos. 4363 and
4400 in the amount of P5 million and P15 million, respectively. The said ASAs were
actually signed by his co-accused Superintendent Van Luspo, with authority from
petitioner. 6
On May 12, 1994, petitioner led a motion for consolidation before the First Division
of the Sandiganbayan seeking the consolidation of Crim. Case No. 20574 (OMB-AFP-
CRIM-93-0047) with Crim. Case Nos. 20185, 20191, 20192 and 20576, all pending before
the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan. 7
On May 17, 1994, the First Division of the Sandiganbayan issued two (2) Orders, the
first, ordering the prosecution, through prosecutor Erdulfo Q. Querubin, ". . . to demonstrate
the probable complicity of the three (3) accused herein [referring to General Cesar
Nazareno, General Joven Domondon and Senior Superintendent Van Luspo] in the
transaction described in the Information resulting in a violation of [the] Anti-graft Law
under Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. 3019"; 8 considering its uncertainty as to the probable cause
against the aforementioned accused, 9 and the second Order, deferring action on the
motion for consolidation "[c]onsidering the uncertainty of this Court to even proceeding
(sic) with this case at this time and considering further that the motion for consolidation is
(sic) led by only one of the fteen (15) accused, and considering nally the statement of
Prosecutor Erdulfo Q. Querubin that this case can stand independently of the proceeding
in the other cases . . . until at least two (2) of the observations of this Court above on this
matter shall have been responded to." 1 0 LibLex

On June 8, 1994, the First Division of the Sandiganbayan cancelled the scheduled
arraignment in Crim. Case No. 20574 until further advice from the prosecution. 1 1
On November 8, 1994, Erdulfo Q. Querubin, Special Prosecution O cer III of the
O ce of the Special Prosecutor/Ombudsman, issued an Order, approved by [then]
Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez, 1 2 recommending that the information in Crim. Case
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 No. 20574 be amended to exclude six (6) accused (not including the petitioner), and that
the prosecution against the other remaining accused (including the petitioner) be
continued. 1 3
On May 17, 1995, petitioner led a motion for reconsideration of the foregoing
Order with prayer for the consolidation of Crim. Case No. 20574 with Crim. Case Nos.
20185, 20191, 20192, 20576 and 22098, 1 4 which are allegedly pending reinvestigation by
the Office of the Ombudsman. 1 5
On November 29, 1995, Joselito R. Ferrer, Special Prosecutor I of the O ce of the
Special Prosecutor/Ombudsman, issued an Order recommending that the Order of Special
Prosecution O cer Erdulfo Q. Querubin, dated November 8, 1994, be modi ed to exclude
petitioner from the information in Crim. Case No. 20574; and denying the prayer for
consolidation. 1 6 However, the foregoing Order was disapproved by Ombudsman Aniano
A. Desierto on February 19, 1997, on the basis of the recommendation of Overall Deputy
Ombudsman Francisco A. Villa. 1 7 In his memorandum dated September 2, 1996 and
addressed to the Ombudsman, Overall Deputy Ombudsman Francisco A. Villa proposed
the setting of the arraignment and pre-trial conference in Crim. Case No. 20574. 1 8
Accordingly, a Motion to Admit Amended Information was led with the Sandiganbayan on
August 26, 1997. 1 9 The amended information excluded some of the accused but included
petitioner among others as they were recommended for further prosecution by the
Ombudsman. 2 0
Hence, this petition. The following issues are raised:
A. WHETHER THERE WAS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING
TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN THE RESPONDENTS
VILLA AND DESIERTO DENIED THE PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION;
B. WHETHER THERE WAS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING
TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN THE RESPONDENTS
VILLA, DESIERTO, AND TAMAYO DENIED THE PETITIONER'S MOTION
FOR CONSOLIDATION;
C. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT FIRST DIVISION, SANDIGANBAYAN
SHOULD BE ENJOINED FROM PROCEEDING WITH THE HEARING
AND OTHER INCIDENTS OF CRIMINAL CASE NO. 20574 AGAINST
THE PETITIONER DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE PETITION.
Petitioner contends that respondents Villa and Desierto acted with grave abuse of
discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration, arguing that there is no probable
cause against him and that the said respondents disregarded the evidence he adduced. cdasia

Petitioner also alleges that respondents Desierto, Villa and Tamayo acted with grave
abuse of discretion in denying his motion for consolidation, claiming that since all of the
pertinent cases have been remanded by the Sandiganbayan to the O ce of the Special
Prosecutor under the O ce of the Ombudsman for reinvestigation, "jurisdiction has
revested" in the latter and ". . . it is grave abuse of discretion to refuse to perform the duty
of consolidating these cases." 2 1
The contentions are untenable.
As this Court stated in Ocampo, IV vs. Ombudsman: 2 2
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 "Well settled is the rule that criminal prosecutions may not be restrained, either
through a preliminary or final injunction or a writ of prohibition, except in the
following instances:

(1) To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;

(2) When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid
oppression or multiplicity of actions;
(3) When there is a prejudicial question which is sub-judice;

(4) When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;
(5) Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation;
(6) When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;

(7) Where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense;

(8) Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;

(9) Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for
vengeance;

(10) When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a
motion to quash on that ground has been denied;
(11) Preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to prevent
the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners."cdphil

Corollary to the foregoing rule, the courts cannot interfere with the discretion of the
scal or Ombudsman to determine the speci city and adequacy of the averments of the
offense charged. He may dismiss the complaint forthwith if he nds it to be insu cient in
form or substance or if he otherwise nds no ground to continue with the inquiry; or he
may proceed with the investigation if the complaint is, in his view, in due and proper form.
2 3 However, while the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether or not a
criminal case should be led, this Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's
action when there is an abuse of discretion, by way of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 2 4
Thus, we proceed to determine whether the respondents Ombudsman Desierto and
Overall Deputy Ombudsman Villa acted with grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of
discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction, or, in other words where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or
despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and
gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty
enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. 2 5 Such arbitrariness or despotism does
not obtain here. Petitioner has not shown that respondents Desierto and Villa committed
grave abuse of discretion in their determination to proceed with petitioner's prosecution in
Crim. Case No. 20574. On the basis of their reinvestigation, respondents found su cient
probable cause to include petitioner in the indictment. As thoroughly discussed by
respondents in the Comment and Rejoinder led before this Court, petitioner's "complicity
in the commission of the crime is clearly revealed by the facts and circumstances
surrounding the case." 2 6 At this point we reiterate that ". . . [t]his is an exercise of the
Ombudsman's powers based upon constitutional mandate and the courts should not
interfere in such exercise. The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and
prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the O ce of the Ombudsman but upon
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the courts will be grievously hampered by
innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by
the O ce of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints led before it, in much the same
way that the courts will be extremely swamped if they could be compelled to review the
exercise of discretion on the part of the scals or prosecuting attorneys each time they
decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant." 2 7
With regard to respondents' denial of petitioner's motion for consolidation of Crim.
Case No. 20574 with Crim. Case Nos. 20185, 20191, 20192, 20576 and 22098, we find the
same to be well-founded. While the Ombudsman has full discretion to determine whether
or not a criminal case should be led in the Sandiganbayan, once the case has been led
with said court, it is the Sandiganbayan, and no longer the Ombudsman, which has full
control of the case so much so that the informations may not be dismissed, or in the
instant case, may not be consolidated with other pending cases, without the approval of
the said court. 2 8
Incidentally, petitioner led a Manifestation 2 9 dated June 30, 1999 before this
Court, stating that on June 11, 1999, the O ce of the Ombudsman issued an Order 3 0
excluding petitioner from the information in Crim. Case No. 20185. In the said
Manifestation, petitioner claims that ". . . the subject of the above-entitled petition includes
Criminal Case No. 20185 as well as Criminal Cases Nos. 20574, 20191, 20192, 20576 and
22098." 3 1 Petitioner further claims that ". . . a perusal of the records of Criminal Cases
Nos. 20574, 20191, 20192, 20576 and 22098 would show that the alleged complicity and
participation of the petitioner is (sic) the same as in Criminal Case No. 20185; and
concludes that ". . . with respect to petitioner, Criminal Cases Nos. 20574, 20191, 20192,
20576 and 22098 should be treated in the same manner as Criminal Case No. 20185." 3 2
The exclusion of petitioner from the information as one of the accused in Crim. Case
No. 20185 would not affect the outcome of this petition for the reason that we cannot, at
this time, determine with certainty whether indeed the alleged complicity and participation
of petitioner in Crim. Case No. 20185 are the same as in Crim Case Nos. 20574, 20191,
20192, 20576 and 22098. Contrary to the assertion of petitioner, this petition concerns
only Crim. Case No. 20574 insofar as it involves the propriety of the Ombudsman's action
in proceeding with the said case. And as we have stated at the outset, this Court will not
interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers in
the absence of grave abuse of discretion on his part. Criminal Case Nos. 20185, 20191,
20192, 20576 and 22098 have come to the attention of this Court merely because
petitioner has sought a review of the Ombudsman's denial of his motion for consolidation.
If indeed the said cases have "common factual antecedents" and petitioner's "complicity
and participation" in all of these cases are the same to warrant his exclusion from the other
pertinent cases, petitioner's recourse is with the Sandiganbayan where the said cases are
already pending. LexLib

In view of the foregoing, we do not nd it necessary to address the other matters

originally raised by petitioner in a motion 3 3 dated January 6, 2000, in which he informed
this Court that the Fifth Division of the Sandiganbayan has issued an Order dated
November 25, 1999, setting the arraignment of petitioner in Criminal Case No. 20191.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Mendoza, Quisumbing and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 21-26.
2. Criminal Case Nos. 20191, 20192 and 20576 were for violation of Section 3(e) of
Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," as
amended.

3. Rollo, pp. 32-49.

4. Ibid. at pp. 50-53.
5. Ibid. at pp. 104-105.
6. Ibid. at p. 105.
7. Ibid. at pp. 58-60.
8. Ibid. at p. 61.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid. at p. 62.
11. Ibid. at p. 64.
12. The said Order was approved by Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez on April 27, 1995
and received by petitioner on May 12, 1995.

13. Rollo, pp. 66-73.

14. The Court notes that petitioner has added Crim. Case No. 22098 to the four (4) original
cases pending before the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan.
15. Rollo, pp. 74-83.
16. Ibid. at pp. 21-26.
17. Ibid. at pp. 26-31.
18. Ibid. at p. 27.
19. Ibid. at p. 108.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid. at pp. 16-17.
22. 225 SCRA 725, 729 (1993).
23. Ocampo, IV vs. Ombudsman, 225 SCRA 725, 729-730 (1993).
24. Garcia-Rueda vs. Pascasio, 278 SCRA 769, 776 (1997).
25. Cuison vs. Court of Appeals, 289 SCRA 159, 171 (1998).
26. Rollo, pp. 110.
27. Ocampo, IV vs. Ombudsman, 225 SCRA 725, 730 (1993).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 28. Ocampo, IV vs. Ombudsman, 225 SCRA 725, 730 (1993).
29. Rollo, pp. 195-196.
30. Ibid. at pp. 198-200.
31. Ibid. at p. 195.
32. Ibid. at p. 196.
33. Ibid. at pp. 216-219.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com