01 Yu Vs Sandiganbayan, GR 128466

CASE #: 01 Yu vs Sandiganbayan, GR 128466
G.R. NO.: G.R. No. 128466
DATE OF JUDGMENT: May 31, 2001
PARTIES INVOLVED: Petitioners: REMEGIO P. YU, MICHAEL S. COSUE and JULIETA M.

FERNANDEZ
Respondents: SANDIGANBAYAN, JUSTICES FRANCIS E.
GARCHITORENA, MINITA V. CRICO-NAZARIO and EDILBERTO G.
SANDOVAL (SB 1ST Division), RON. ANIANO DESIERTO, SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR LEONARDO P. TAMAYO, DEPUTY SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR ROBERT E. KALLOS, PROSECUTOR HENEDINA A.
PULGAR, EDDIE PATAWARAN, SUSAN P. CASARENO, LEON LICUDO,
JR. AND CRIS COLOMA,
GENERAL TOPIC Rule 112: Preliminary Investigation

DISCUSSED/KEYWORD: *Who may conduct PI.
*When can courts interfere in PI (which is an executive function)
The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers is vested in

the Office of the Ombudsman; the Court has consistently refrained from
interfering with the Ombudsman in the exercise of its powers, and respects
the initiative and independence inherent in the Ombudsman.
It is well settled that in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion, courts will
not interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman.
OVERVIEW: This is a petition for certiorari with prohibition and an application for
preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.
Petitioner alleging the Ombudsman of committing grave abuse of

discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
FACTS OF THE CASE: ● Petitioners alleged that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding that
there was probable cause to indict them for violation of the Anti Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. And that the Sandiganbayan also committed
grave abuse of discretion in sustaining such finding and persisting to
try the case in SB Case No. 23454
● March 23, 1994, the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon received a Joint
Affidavit and Criminal Complaint from the members of the Sangguniang
Bayan, Rosales, Pangasinan charging Municipal Mayor Yu, Municipal
Vice-Mayor Michael S. Cosue and Municipal Treasurer Julieta M.
Fernandez and Rodolfo Macabunga, the proprietor of Rosales Lumber
and Hardware with violation of R. A. No.3019.
● Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon required the respondents to file their
corresponding counter affidavits
● May 23, 1994, complainants submitted an amended, criminal
complaint dropping Rodolfo Macabunga from the charge attaching
the affidavit of Macabunga ..., that he was not aware how the
Municipal Government came into possession of a delivery receipt
and the voucher amounting to P20,000.00 for the gravel and sand.
● Petitioners claimed that there was indeed delivery of the subject
materials by Rosales Lumber and Hardware which submitted the lowest
bid price quotation, attested to by the affidavits of market vendors of the
Public Market, plus the joint-affidavit of Municipal Engineers, attesting to
the complete delivery of the materials.
● OMB investigator, after evaluation of the evidence for both parties
recommended the dismissal of the case.
● However, the Ombudsman disapproved the recommendation for
dismissal. And relying on the Memorandum of an OMB special
assistant which gave credence to the affidavit of Macabunga, owner
of the Rosales Lumber and Hardware, that he had not entered into any
contract with the municipality of Rosales for the delivery of the subject
materials, the Ombudsman proceeded to charge petitioners with
violation of R. A. No. 3019
● September 11, 1996 ,the Ombudsman filed with the Sandiganbayan
an Information against Yu and all other accused
● November 11, 1996, petitioner Yu and Femandez filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the indictment
● Sandiganbayan denied the motion for reconsideration petitioners
filed.
● According to petitioners, there was an abundance of evidence
showing that there was delivery of the gravel and sand for the
public market and that there is a recommendation for the dismissal
of the case by OMB Investigator
● Respondent Ombudsman stressed that the issues raised are
matters of defense that could be submitted before the
Sandiganbayan at the trial.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that there was
probable cause against petitioners
2. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in sustaining the finding of
probable cause of the Ombudsman
RULING/S:
The court found the petition without merit.
The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers is vested in

the Office of the Ombudsman. The Court has consistently refrained from
interfering with the Ombudsman in the exercise of its powers, and respects
the initiative and independence inherent in the Ombudsman who, "beholden
to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the preserver of the
integrity of public service.”
The rule is based not only upon constitutional considerations but upon
practical ones as well. If it were otherwise, the courts would be gravely
hampered by innumerable petitions questioning the dismissal of
investigatory proceedings before the Ombudsman, in much the same
way that the courts would be swamped if they would be compelled to review
the exercise of discretion on the part of our prosecutors each time they
decide to file an information in court or throw out a complaint.
The main function of the government prosecutor during preliminary

investigation is merely to determine the existence of probable cause,
and to file the corresponding information if he finds it to be so. "And,
probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and
circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting
on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person
charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted”.
To repeat, it is well settled that in the absence of a clear abuse of

discretion, courts will not interfere with the discretion of the
Ombudsman, who, depending on his finding and considered
evaluation of the case, either dismisses a complaint or proceeds with
it.24
In the same manner, we can not say that the Sandiganbayan committed
grave abuse of discretion in finding the existence of probable cause and
continuing with the trial of SB Case No. 23454.
OTHER NOTES:

01 Yu Vs Sandiganbayan, GR 128466

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

01 Yu Vs Sandiganbayan, GR 128466

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

01 Yu Vs Sandiganbayan, GR 128466

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE #: 01 Yu vs Sandiganbayan, GR 128466

G.R. NO.: G.R. No. 128466

DATE OF JUDGMENT: May 31, 2001

PARTIES INVOLVED: Petitioners: REMEGIO P. YU, MICHAEL S. COSUE and JULIETA M.

GENERAL TOPIC Rule 112: Preliminary Investigation

The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers is vested in

Petitioner alleging the Ombudsman of committing grave abuse of

2. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion

The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers is vested in

The main function of the government prosecutor during preliminary

To repeat, it is well settled that in the absence of a clear abuse of

You might also like