1-B, College of Law, San Beda Manila, A.Y.

2017-2018

G.R. No. 147097 June 5, 2009

CASE DIGEST: LAZATIN VS. DESIERTO

PETITIONERS: CARMELO F. LAZATIN, MARINO A. MORALES, TEODORO L. DAVID and ANGELITO

A. PELAYO

RESPONDENTS: HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO as OMBUDSMAN, and SANDIGANBAYAN, THIRD

DIVISION.

FACTS:

 On July 22, 1998, the Fact Finding and Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the
Ombudsman filed a Complaint-Affidavit (Docket No. OMB-0-98-1500) charging
petitioners with Illegal Use of Public Funds penalized under Art. 220 of the RPC and
violations of Sec. 3 par. (a) And (e) of RA 3019.
 It was alleged that Cong. Carmelo Lazatin exhibited irregularities on the use of public
funds for his Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) for 1996. It was said the he received
several (18) checks amounting to a total of P4, 868,227.08 and with the help of
petitioners Morales, Pelayo and David, was able to convert said checks into cash.
 A preliminary investigation was held.
 Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau (EPIB) recommended the filing against
petitioners 14 counts each of Malversation of Public Funds and violation of Sec. 3 RA
3019. This was approved by the Ombudsman. Hence, Criminal cases (Nos. 26087 to
26114) were filed against petitioners before the Sandiganbayan.
 Upon the filing of their respective Motions of Reconsideration, Sandiganbayan ordered
the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) to re-evaluate the cases against the
petitioners.
 OSP submitted its Resolution to the Ombudsman and recommended the dismissal of the
cases against the petitioners for lack of sufficient evidence.
 Ombudsman then ordered the Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) to review the OSP Resolution
and OLA then recommended to the Resolution be disapproved and directed the OSP to
proceed with the trial of the cases.
 Upon OLA’s recommendation, the Ombudsman ordered the aggressive prosecution of
the cases in Sandiganbayan.
 The petitioners filed for instant petition contending that:
I. The Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion or acted without or in
excess of his jurisdiction.
II. The questioned Resolution was based on Misapprehension of Facts,
Speculations, Surmises, and Conjectures.
 1-B, College of Law, San Beda Manila, A.Y. 2017-2018

 The petitioners also questioned the constitutionality of RA 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of
1989) and they also insisted that they be absolved from liability because the checks were
issued as reimbursement to Lazatin for the advances he made from his personal account for
the immediate implementation of projects for the Pinatubo victims.
 The court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
 Thus, a petition for certiorari was filed.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not RA 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) is unconstitutional?
2. Whether or not the Ombudsman’s disapproval of the OSP Resolution was based on the
misapprehension of facts, speculations, surmises, and conjectures?
HELD:
1. RA 6670 is NOT unconstitutional. The Court stated that Petitioners’ attack on the
constitutionality of RA6770 is stale. This question has long been settled that the
provisions of RA 6670 is has no constitutional infirmity. In Acop vs. Office of the
Ombudsman it’s been held that the prosecutorial power of the Ombudsman is in
accordance with par. 8 Sec. 13 Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution which provides that
the Ombudsman shall “exercise such other functions or duties as may be provided by
the law.”
Petitioners asserted the Court’s ruling on the Constitutionality of provisions of
RA6770 and should be revisited and the principle of stare decisis set aside.
The doctrine of stare decisis has assumed such value in our judicial system that
the Court ruled that “abandonment thereof must be based only on strong and
compelling reasons,” otherwise, the becoming virtue of predictability which is expected
from the Courts would be immeasurably affected and the public’s confidence in the
stability of the solemn pronouncements diminished. In this case, the petitioners failed
to show any strong, compelling reason to convince the Court that the doctrine of stare
decisis should not be applied to this case.

2. The question is really whether the Ombudsman correctly ruled that there was
enough evidence to support a finding of probable cause. The issue, however, pertains to
a mere error of judgment. It must be stressed that certiorari is a remedy meant to
correct only errors in jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. Certiorari will not be issued to
cure errors in trial court in its appreciation of the evidence of the parties or its
conclusions anchored on the said findings and its conclusions of law.
For the Court to overturn the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause, it is
imperative for petitioners to clearly prove that said public official acted with grave
abuse of discretion. In this case, the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the
 1-B, College of Law, San Beda Manila, A.Y. 2017-2018

Ombudsman acted in a manner described above. Clearly, the Ombudsman was acting in
accordance with RA 6770 and properly exercised its power of control and supervision
over the OSP when it disapproved its Resolution dated Sep. 18, 2000.
It should also be noted that the petition does not question any order or action of
the Sandiganbayan Third Division; hence, it should not have been included as a
respondent in this petition.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. No costs.