[9] Carmelo F. Lazatin, Marino A. Morales, Teodor L. David and Angelito A. Pelayo v. Hon.

Aniano
Desierto as Ombudsman & Sandigan Bayan
GR 147097

This is a Petition for Certiorarii under rule 65 of the Rules of Court praying that the Ombudsman’s
disapproval of the Office of the Special Prosecutor’s Resolution in 2000, recommending the
dismissal of the criminal cases filed against herein petitioners be reversed and set aside.

In 1998, the Fact-Finding Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman filed a Complaint-
Affidavit, charging herein petitioners with Illegal Use of Public Funds as defined and penalized under Art.
220 of the RPC and Violation of Sec. 3 par a & e of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)

The complaint alleged that there were irregularities in the use of then Congressman Carmello Lazatin in
his use of Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) for the year 1996 –

That he was both the proponent and implementer of the projects funded from his CDF; and he
was the one to sign vouchers and supporting papers pertinent to the disbursement as
Disbursing Officer; and also the one to receive 18 checks totaling P4,868,277.08. Lazatin with
Morales, Pelayo and David were able to convert his CDF into cash.

An investigation was conducted by the Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau. It issued (year
2000) a resolution recommending for the filing of 14 counts each of petitioners Malversation of Public
Funds and violation of RA 3019 (Section 3 e). This resolution was approved by the Ombudsman, and
the corresponding Criminal Cases (28 of them) were filed against the petitioners in the
Sandiganbayan.

Lazatin and his co-petitioners filed their respective motions for

Reconsideration/Reinvestigation and it was granted by the 3rd Division of the Sandiganbayan.
The Sandiganbayan also ordered the prosecution to re-evaluate the cases against the
petitioners.

The Office of the Special Prosecutor submitted to the Ombudsman its resolution in September 2000
where it recommended for the dismissal of the cases against the petitioners for lack or insufficiency of
evidence.

The Ombudsman however ordered the Office of the Legal Affairs to review the OSP Resolution, and
subsequently after review, the OLA recommended that the said resolution be disapproved and the OSP
be directed to proceed with the trial of the cases against petitioners.

In 2000, the Ombudsman adopted the OLA Memorandum, disapproving the OSP Resolution in
September 2000, ordering the prosecution of the cases.

Among others,ii the petitioners contend that the Ombudsman had no authority to overturn the
OSP’s Resolution, dismissing the cases against the petitioners because the Ombudsman is
clothed only with the power1 to watch, investigate and recommend the filing of the proper cases
against erring officials. It was not vested with the power to prosecute as such power belongs to
the OSP (Formerly the Tanodbayan). (Simpler; that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of
discretion.) Further, petitioners also attacked the constitutionality of RA 6770 which made the
OSP an organic component of the Office of the Ombudsman.

Issue: Whether the Ombudsman was vested with the power to prosecute or not.

Ruling: Yes. In the case of Acop v. Office of the Ombudsman, the Court had the opportunity to refer to
the transcripts of the Constitutional Commission of 1986. The transcript revealed that although there
was an intention to withhold prosecutorial powers to the Ombudsman, the Commission (1986 Con.
Com.) did not hesitate to recommend that the Legislature could, through statute, prescribe such other
powers, functions, and duties to the Ombudsman.

1
See Section 13, Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution
Furthermore, the constitutionality of Section 3 of R.A. No. 6770, which subsumed the OSP under the
Office of the Ombudsman, was likewise upheld by the Court in the Acop case:

“Section 7 of Article XI expressly provides that the then existing Tanodbayan, to be henceforth
known as the Office of the Special Prosecutor, shall continue to function and exercise its
powers as now or hereafter may be provided by law, except those conferred on the Office of
the Ombudsman created under this Constitution.
The underscored phrase evidently refers to the Tanodbayan's powers under P.D. No. 1630 or
subsequent amendatory legislation. It follows then that Congress may remove any of the
Tanodbayan's/Special Prosecutor's powers under P.D. No. 1630 or grant it other powers, except
those powers conferred by the Constitution on the Office of the Ombudsman.”

“Pursuing the present line of reasoning, when one considers that by express mandate of
paragraph 8, Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution, the Ombudsman may exercise such other
powers or perform functions or duties as may be provided by law, it is indubitable then that
Congress has the power to place the Office of the Special Prosecutor 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 Prosecutor such other powers and functions and duties as Congress may deem fit and
wise. This Congress did through the passage of R.A. No. 6770.”

In other words, the Office of the Special Prosecutor has become a component of the Office of the
Ombudsman (by statute), and may only act under the supervision and control, and upon authority of the
Ombudsman. Grave abuse of discretion was also not proved, as it implies a capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. Here, there was no showing that the judgment
was erroneous.

Case is dismissed for lack of merit.

i
Discussed on the case: It must be noted that certiorari petitions meant to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors
of judgment.
ii
They also contend that the petitioners should be absolved from any liability because the checks were issued to
Lazatin as reimbursements for the cash he put out for the fast implementation of projects.

Also, petitioners contend that the doctrine of Stare Decisis – where the Court made basis of the decision on
Constitutionality on a number of cases, be abandoned. But this contention was denied by the Court for lack of a
strong and compelling reason to do so.