ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 139807. June 7, 2000]

FLORANTE M. SORIQUEZ vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 7 2000.

G.R. No. 139807 (Florante M. Soriquez vs. Sandiganbayan and the Ombudsman.)

In his Petition for Certiorari, petitioner challenges the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan, penned by Justice Minita V. Chivo-Nazario, which denied dismissal of the criminal case filed against him for violation of Section 3 (e), RA 3019, the Anti-Graft Law.

The Court perused the lengthy Petition, the Comments (of the Solicitor General and the Special Prosecutor) and the Consolidated Reply, and it is convinced that the matters raised by petitioner are evidentiary in nature and can best be tackled during the trial of the case now pending before respondent court.

The Ombudsman is granted by the law the discretion to determine whether probable cause exists, and whether the respondent is probably guilty of the crime charged. Petitioner has not shown that the Ombudsman has exceeded or gravely abused his discretion in his evaluation. That he reversed the recommendations of his assistants is not necessarily proof of abuse of discretion, not of "grave" abuse in any event.

Jurisprudentially, this Court has "consistently refrained from interfering" with the prosecution of cases filed by the Ombudsman (Alba v. Nitorreda et al., 254 SCRA 753, March 13, 1996). Petitioner has not convinced us that his case is an exception to this rule. We therefore cannot fault the Sandiganbayan for adhering to existing jurisprudence.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED for its failure to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE