University of the Philippines College of LawConsti | Atty. Charlie Yu

Case Digest

TOPIC: The OmbudsmanDOCTRINE: Art. X1, Sec. 8-12CASE Number: G.R. No. 108431CASE Name: Raro vs. SandiganbayanPonente: Justice Ynares-Santiago

FACTS The case involves a special civil action assailing the Sandiganbayan’s resolution on

account that it committed grave abuse of discretion The petitioner is one Oscar G. Raro, PCSO’s Corporate Secretary and Acting

Department Manager of the Special Projects Department, who was accused (with probable cause) of violating Section 3 of RA 3019

Raro, who was tasked to supervise the Small Town Lottery (STL) Experimental Project of the PCSO, was accused to have “willfully, unlawfully, and criminally demanded and received on four different occasions the amount totaling to Php 116, 799.99 from Luis Abaño, provincial manager of the STL operations in CamNorte

ISSUE1. Whether or not the Ombudsman conducted the preliminary investigation erroneously

and irregularly?

HELD (including the Ratio Decidendi) No. because:

1. Contrary to the petitioner’s contention that the Ombudsman (and Sandiganbayan) failed to examine the complainant personally and procedurally:-the referral of the complaint to the NBI is not equivalent to the Ombudsman’s abdication of its constitutional and statutory duty to conduct preliminary investigation-what was delegated was only the fact finding function, in preparation for the preliminary investigation proper, still to be conducted by the Ombudsman (Art XI, Sec. 13)-rule II, sec. 2 (d) of Administrative Order No. 07, “the investigating officer has the option to forward the complaint to the appropriate office or official for fact-finding investigation

2. Contrary to the petitioner’s contention that the preliminary investigation conducted by the Ombudsman was hasty, malicious, and persecutory, and that it was based on inadmissible evidence:

-the record clearly shows that the Ombudsman exerted utmost effort to determine the veracity of the allegations thrown at the petitioner

-"The Court is not unmindful of the duty of the Ombudsman under the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770 to act promptly on Complaints brought before him. But such duty should not be mistaken with a hasty resolution of cases at the expense of thoroughness and correctness. Judicial notice should be taken of the fact that the nature of the Office of the Ombudsman encourages individuals who clamor for efficient government service to freely lodge their Complaints against wrongdoings of government personnel, thus resulting in a steady stream of cases reaching the Office of the Ombudsman."

RULING:Wherefore the petition for certiorari and prohibition is dismissed for lack of merit.