Reynes v. Office of the Ombudsman

 

Reynes v. Office of the Ombudsman

G.R. No. 223405

February 20, 2019

FACTS:

                Reynes complained about the barangay captain’s exaction of Php2k instead of only Php1k for the collection of garbage in the resort, Blue Reef Beach Resort and Cottages and Hotel in Brgy. Marigondon, Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu. The petitioner contends that Brgy. Captain Amores violated Art. 213(2) of the RPC which is the illegal exaction and Sec. 48 of RA 9003 (Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000). The Office of the Ombudsman through Atty. Mernado, dismissed Reynes’ complaint since the it does not fall under the 16 prohibited acts in Art. 48 and that the complainant failed to present an ordinance fixing the amount of garbage fees. Complainant failed to present the Ordinance on garbage fees. Thus, there is lack of evidence that respondent Amores demanded payment of sums different from or larger than that authorized by law. The payment complainant made to Barangay Marigondon appeared to be a donation as reflected in the Official Receipt issued. Complainant did not bother to question why the payments he made were reflected in the Official Receipt as donations. Also, complainant failed to show any proof that the donation he gave to the barangay is prohibited by law.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion.

HELD:

                Yes. Jurisprudence has settled that probable cause for the filing of an information is "a matter which rests on likelihood rather than on certainty. It relies on common sense rather than on 'clear and convincing evidence.’” As a general rule, a public prosecutor's determination of probable cause - that is, one made for the purpose of filing an Information in court - is essentially an executive function and, therefore, generally lies beyond the pale of judicial scrutiny. The exception to this rule is when such determination is tainted with grave abuse of discretion and perforce becomes correctible through the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Being entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts, shall be guilty of any of the following acts or omissions: (a) Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger than those authorized by law. (b) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of money collected by him officially. (c) Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise, things or objects of a nature different from that provided by law.  Amores was the head of Barangay Marigondon. Also, she was tasked with "enforcing all laws and ordinances which are applicable within the barangay; maintaining public order; and promoting the general welfare of the barangay. The evidence sustained that she demanded an amount different from or larger than those authorized by law. Amores violated Article 213(2) by her mere act of demanding paymentregardless of the amount-because she was, to begin with, not allowed to demand anything. Petitioner's entire cause was anchored on the assertion that because no ordinance, law, or regulation has ever permitted private respondent Amores to receive anything, yet she collected something, she violated Article 213(2). However, the records available lack any averment on how public respondent disposed of the administrative aspect of petitioner's Complaint. This Court is not aware of any matter to affirm or reverse in this respect. The records also do not indicate a claim or f an explanation of how public respondent may have erred in its handling of such administrative aspect. Thus, this Court is in no position to make conclusions on the administrative aspect of petitioner's claims. To be clear, the affirmation of the dismissal of the Criminal Complaint against private respondent Hontiveros is without prejudice to the proper disposition of the administrative aspect of the Complaint against her.

Wherefore the petition is partly granted. The dismissal of the crime charged against private respondent Lucresia Amores for violating  Article 213(2) of the RPC is set aside.