Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > August 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 102795 August 10, 1992 - DAMIAN OGBURN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 102795. August 10, 1992.]

DAMIAN OGBURN, NEPHERONIA OGBURN, IGNACIO TAMAYO, JR. and ROBERT VOGEL, Petitioners, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

Patrick S. Macamay for Petitioner.

Lenin R. Victoriano for Sycip Plantation.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROSECUTION; INFORMATION; DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT TO LODGE WITH THE COURT; LIES WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE REALM OF THE PROSECUTION; CASE AT BAR. — Although the Ombudsman found many things wrong with the way Judge Lomeda conducted his preliminary examination of the charge of qualified theft against the petitioners and although Judge Lomeda’s conclusion, that the crime committed was not qualified theft but malicious mischief, was the same conclusion that Assistant Prosecutor Betinol arrived at after a reinvestigation of the case at the instance of the petitioners themselves, the Court of Appeals and the RTC correctly held that "the factual findings and conclusions of the Ombudsman, although entitled to respect, should not be allowed to take precedence over the findings of the prosecuting officers who had personally conducted the preliminary investigation. The determination of whether or not an information must be lodged with the courts lies within the exclusive realm of the prosecution, free from the influence or intervention of the courts or quasi-judicial bodies." The conclusion of Prosecutor Betinol that the crime committed by the petitioners was malicious mischief was based on the evidence received by him during his own reinvestigation of the case. Hence, even if his conclusion was the same as that of Judge Lomeda it was not tainted with the errors and irregularities that infected Judge Lomeda’s preliminary investigation of the case.


D E C I S I O N


GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:


This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 24, 1991 in CA-G.R. No. 11107-CR entitled, "Damian Ogburn, Et. Al. v. Hon. Judge RTC-Dumaguete City, Branch 39, Et. Al." which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court remanding to the Municipal Trial Court the case of malicious mischief against the petitioners for trial on the merits.

In July 1983, Damian Ogburn, an Australian citizen, was hired by Moises L. Sycip as Senior Prawn Consultant of the Sycip Plantation, Inc. (SPI, for short), a prawn saltfarm in Manjuyod, Negros Oriental.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Upon recommendation of Ogburn, Ahab Balbon was hired by SPI to be his understudy.

Robert Vogel, a Canadian citizen, was under contract with SPI to install water pumps. Ignacio Tamayo was his helper.

During the later part of February, Ogburn, his wife Nepheronia, Vogel, Tamayo and Ogburn’s cook, Ma. Theresa Garcia, were all billeted in the SPI guesthouse.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

In the evening of February 26, 1988, after having done the day’s work, Ogburn and Vogel allegedly decided to have prawns for dinner. Ogburn allegedly took four (4) of the six giant prawns in an aquarium in the guesthouse and had them cooked for his and Vogel’s dinner.

The next morning, February 27, 1988, Santiago Askin reported to Ahab Balbon, what happened to the four (4) prawns which were allegedly the subject of Balbon’s experiment.

Based on the sworn statements executed by Balbon and Askin, a criminal complaint for qualified theft was filed on March 2, 1988, in the Second Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Manjuyod, Negros Oriental by P/Lt. Cesar Balderas, Station Commander of Manjuyod, Negros Oriental, against the Ogburns, Vogel and Tamayo. It was docketed as Criminal Case No. M-19 (88). The information charged the petitioners with having illegally taken four (4) pieces of giant prawns, grown for experimental purposes, thereby causing damage to the owner, SPI, in the sum of P400,000.00 representing the value of the prawns and the estimated loss due to the 3 to 4 years setback allegedly suffered by the prawn project.

The petitioners submitted their counter-affidavits to the investigating Judge, MCTC Judge Aurelio J.V. Lomeda.

On May 23, 1988, Judge Lomeda, after conducting a preliminary examination in the form of searching questions and answers, found probable cause to believe that the crime charged was committed by the petitioners and that there was need to place them in custody. So he issued warrants of arrest and fixed bail of P30,000.00 for each of them.chanrobles law library : red

On August 1, 1988, Judge Lomeda issued an order terminating the preliminary investigation and submitting the case for resolution.

On November 23, 1988, the Ogburns posted cash bail bonds amounting to P60,000.00 for their provisional liberty.

On October 5, 1989, or more than a year since the examination was ended with no resolution yet in sight, Ogburn and Vogel filed with the Ombudsman a complaint against Judge Lomeda and P/Lt. Cesar Baldero and Moises Sycip (alleged manager of SPI) for dereliction of duty, violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, gross incompetence and gross ignorance of the law.

Spurred to action by the petitioners’ recourse to the Ombudsman, Judge Lomeda issued on October 9, 1989, a resolution finding no sufficient ground to hold them for qualified theft, but he found probable cause for malicious mischief. Nevertheless, in view of the charge filed by the petitioners against him in the Office of the Ombudsman, Judge Lomeda inhibited himself from the case. Judge Romeo Anasario was designated to take over.

On October 31, 1989, the petitioners filed a motion for reinvestigation with the Provincial Prosecutor of Negros Oriental who granted their motion and designated Assistant Provincial Fiscal Epifanio S. Betinol, to conduct it. After conducting a reinvestigation of the case, Fiscal Betinol affirmed Judge Lomeda’s preliminary finding that the crime committed by the petitioners was only malicious mischief. Accordingly, he lodged an information for malicious mischief in the Municipal Trial Court, where it was docketed as Criminal Case No. M-18-90.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

The petitioners filed a petition for review of Fiscal Betinol’s resolution in the Department of Justice. Their petition was dismissed.

Meanwhile, in the graft case against Judge Lomeda, the Ombudsman noted that the respondents (now petitioners) and their counsel had not been present at the preliminary examination conducted by Judge Lomeda; that the issuance of the warrants of arrest against them was premature; and that excessive bail of P30,000.00 for each, instead of only P1,800.00 was fixed for their provisional liberty.

On July 20, 1990, the Ombudsman: (1) dismissed the complaint against Lt. Balderas, (2) indorsed the complaint against Judge Lomeda to the Court Administrator of the Supreme Court "for the necessary administrative investigation against Judge Lomeda pursuant to Section 21 of RA 6770." (p. 66, Rollo) and (3) recommended the filing in the Sandiganbayan of a proper information for violation of Section 3, par. (e) of RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Ombudsman noted that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The aforesaid resolution [of Judge Lomeda] does not contain any finding at all nor does it contain any discussion of any of the three (3) elements of the crime of Malicious Mischief under Article 327 and penalized under Article 329 of the Revised Penal Code on the case under consideration.

"Stated clearly there is nothing in the resolution that would reasonably justify the finding on the probability of the accused having committed the crime of Malicious Mischief ." (p. 62, Rollo; Emphasis supplied.)

On the strength of the Ombudsman’s above observation, petitioners filed on October 24, 1990, a motion to dismiss Criminal Case No. M-18-90.

On December 14, 1990, Judge Anasario granted the motion to dismiss the charge of malicious mischief against the petitioners because "the Court’s conscience could not allow that this case should go on before this Court." (p. 85, Rollo.)

The court cancelled the bail bond of P60,000.00 put up by the Ogburns, allowed them to withdraw their cash bond, and recalled the warrants of arrest against Vogel and Tamayo.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The People appealed Judge Anasario’s order to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, Dumaguete City. The court reversed Judge Anasario’s resolution and ordered the remand of the record of the case to the court of origin "for trial in accordance with law."cralaw virtua1aw library

The petitioners filed a petition for review in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 11107). On September 24, 1991, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. Hence, this recourse to the Supreme Court by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

The main issue here is whether or not the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court erred in setting aside the resolution of MCTC Judge Romeo Anasario dismissing Criminal Case No. M-18-90 for malicious mischief based on the Ombudsman’s finding that Judge Lomeda’s preliminary investigation of the charge was irregular.

Although the Ombudsman found many things wrong with the way Judge Lomeda conducted his preliminary examination of the charge of qualified theft against the petitioners and although Judge Lomeda’s conclusion, that the crime committed was not qualified theft but malicious mischief, was the same conclusion that Assistant Prosecutor Betinol arrived at after a reinvestigation of the case at the instance of the petitioners themselves, the Court of Appeals and the RTC correctly held that "the factual findings and conclusions of the Ombudsman, although entitled to respect, should not be allowed to take precedence over the findings of the prosecuting officers who had personally conducted the preliminary investigation. The determination of whether or not an information must be lodged with the courts lies within the exclusive realm of the prosecution, free from the influence or intervention of the courts or quasi-judicial bodies" (p. 153, Rollo). The conclusion of Prosecutor Betinol that the crime committed by the petitioners was malicious mischief was based on the evidence received by him during his own reinvestigation of the case. Hence, even if his conclusion was the same as that of Judge Lomeda it was not tainted with the errors and irregularities that infected Judge Lomeda’s preliminary investigation of the case. To quote the Court of Appeals:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . granting in gratia argumenti that the Ombudsman had correctly adjudged the actuations of Judge Lomeda to be out of bounds when he conducted the preliminary investigation of this case, the defect was cured when a reinvestigation was conducted by Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Betinol who found the existence of a probable cause and filed the appropriate information against the petitioners." (p. 153, Rollo.)

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 11107, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioners.chanrobles law library : red

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Medialdea and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 78341 August 3, 1992 - TURIANO M. SAN ANDRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 85962-63 August 3, 1992 - ROSARIO GACOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95703 August 3, 1992 - RURAL BANK OF BOMBON (CAM. SUR), INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97306 August 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO TUBURO

  • G.R. No. 75363 August 4, 1992 - FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO. v. FIRESTONE TIRE EMPLOYEES’ UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83190 August 4, 1992 - CEBU SEAMEN’S ASSOCIATION, INC. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86436 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVENCIO DE PAZ

  • G.R. No. 90802 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOM CHANAS

  • G.R. No. 91160 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX FULGARILLAS

  • G.R. No. 91695 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT MALONZO

  • G.R. No. 93143 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO R. RACE, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-95757 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO RAÑOLA

  • G.R. No. 97319 August 4, 1992 - GODOFREDO T. SWAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98251 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO CRUDA

  • G.R. No. 100399 August 4, 1992 - TEKNIKA SKILLS AND TRADE SERVICES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100511 August 4, 1992 - SPS. BENITO TRINIDAD and SOLEDAD TRINIDAD v. SPS. LUIS CABRERA and DELIA CABRERA

  • G.R. No. 100752 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 102869 August 4, 1992 - SEN PO EK MARKETING CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47158 August 5, 1992 - ANGUSTIA M. IBAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57127 August 5, 1992 - RHODORA DEL CASTILLO v. CANDIDO AGUINALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82782 August 5, 1992 - JOSE B. TIONGCO, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87434 August 5, 1992 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INS., ET AL. v. SWEET LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97291 August 5, 1992 - RUFINO MISA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100138 August 5, 1992 - FIVE J TAXI, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101148 August 5, 1992 - TERRY LYN MAGNO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101428 August 5, 1992 - ISABELITA VITAL-GOZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102448 August 5, 1992 - RICARDO CUARTERO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60506 August 6, 1992 - FIGURACION VDA. DE MAGLANA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO Z. CONSOLACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94490 August 6, 1992 - JOSE DE LUNA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96635 August 6, 1992 - ATLANTIC, GULF AND PACIFIC CO. v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97952 August 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALVIN LIQUEN

  • G.R. No. 101279 August 6, 1992 - PHIL. ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC. v. RUBEN D. TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105628 August 6, 1992 - RODULFO SARMIENTO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-90-408 August 7, 1992 - RICHARD M. HOUGHTON, ET AL. v. ANTONIO D. VELASCO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-91-660 August 7, 1992 - UNKNOWN MUN. COUNCILOR OF STO. DOMINGO, NUEVA ECIJA v. MARIO V. ALOMIA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 72001 August 7, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO BECHAYDA

  • G.R. No. 76966 August 7, 1992 - CAFFCO INT’L. LTD. v. OFF. OF THE MINISTER-MIN. OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91797 August 7, 1992 - WIDOWS & ORPHANS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95431 August 7, 1992 - FLORENCIA DE LA CALZADA-CIERRAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95838 August 7, 1992 - MARCELINO LAURETO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 101127-31 August 7, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENIA C. REYES

  • G.R. No. 101512 August 7, 1992 - NILDA GABRIEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95832 August 10, 1992 - MAYNARD R. PERALTA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 96126 August 10, 1992 - ESTERIA F. GARCIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97611 August 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO TALENTO

  • G.R. No. 97753 August 10, 1992 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97764 August 10, 1992 - LEVY D. MACASIANO v. ROBERTO C. DIOKNO

  • G.R. No. 102549 August 10, 1992 - ERWIN B. JAVELLANA v. DEPT. OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVT., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102795 August 10, 1992 - DAMIAN OGBURN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79664 August 11, 1992 - ANDRES VILLAVILLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99431 August 11, 1992 - GOLDLOOP PROPERTIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64019 August 12, 1992 - BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80491 August 12, 1992 - J. ARTIE VERGEL DE DIOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91491 August 12, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO ALMENARIO

  • G.R. No. 93516 August 12, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BASILIO DAMASO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95583 August 12, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO WENCESLAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98325 August 12, 1992 - LUCINO DIAZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100490 August 12, 1992 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT LINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100942 August 12, 1992 - LUCIO TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62556 August 13, 1992 - VENANCIO GONZALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100285 August 13, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON DUQUE

  • Adm. Case No. 3187 August 14, 1992 - MYRNA D. ROQUE, ET AL. v. FELICIANO B. CLEMENCIO

  • G.R. No. 100643 August 14, 1992 - ADEZ REALTY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100969 August 14, 1992 lab

    CARLOS RANARA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75112 August 17, 1992 - FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94555 August 17, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHlL. v. EDUARDO LABALAN OCIMAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101566 August 17, 1992 - FLORENCIO A. RUIZ, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-90-496 August 18, 1992 - MARCELO B. ASUNCION, ET AL. v. K. CASIANO P. ANUNCIACION, JR.

  • G.R. No. 85997 August 19, 1992 - HORTENSIA L. STARKE v. PHILIPPINE SUGAR COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96182 August 19, 1992 - MARCELO FERNANDO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80739 August 2, 1992 - GRACIA R. JOVEN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91004-05 August 20, 1992 - JOSEPH TAY CHUN SUY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95305 August 20, 1992 - ELENA LINDAIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90036 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO GONZAGA

  • G.R. No. 90107 August 21, 1992 - DOMINGO A. TUZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91646 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMIL MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 91846 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO MACLID, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94115 August 21, 1992 - RODOLFO E. AGUINALDO v. LUIS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94299 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO MALLARI

  • G.R. No. 96810 August 21, 1992 - THE HEIRS OF JESUS AMADO ARANETA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101858 August 21, 1992 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85286 August 24, 1992 - BASILIO A. BALASBAS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100401 August 24, 1992 - CONSOLIDATED DAIRY PRODUCTS CO., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101630 August 24, 1992 - VICTOR DE JESUS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91129 August 25, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO D. PABLO

  • G.R. No. 94374 August 27, 1992 - PHIL. LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHIL., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59436 August 28, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN MOLINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74740 August 28, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 48532 August 31, 1992 - HERNANDO B. CONWI, ET AL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65532 August 31, 1992 - CONCEPCION PELAEZ VDA. DE TAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66253 August 31, 1992 - METRO PORT SERVICE, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75959 August 31, 1992 - VICTORIANO V. OROCIO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92758 August 31, 1992 - EMILIO VENEGAS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93238 August 31, 1992 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102131 August 31, 1992 - FRANCO GORION v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CEBU, ET AL.