The Supreme Court ruled that the Office of the Ombudsman may conduct an investigation separate and distinct from any investigation by the Commission on Audit (COA), even if both involve similar facts arising from the same acts and transactions. The Court held that the Ombudsman is not required to wait for the finality of a COA audit before it can investigate unlawful and improper acts of public officials, and that while COA findings may be persuasive, they are not binding.
The Case
The Court resolved nine consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, together with a Motion for Reconsideration, filed by Ronelo O. Del Socorro, Edwin G. Iglesia, Romeo C. Llacuna, Bernard I. Zambales, Ferdinand S. Dilig, Luis M. Marcaida II, Rolando E. Bonoan, Jr., Rosario Pascual Abacial, Renato A. Abrina, Manuel T. Cabiguen, Federico R. Rubio, Jr., Pedro V. Gatinga, Jr., Tommy S. Panes, Bayani Tan Buenaventura, Alfredo B. Padua, Pepe Martinez Patacsil, and Samuel V. Madamba II and Orlando R. Colobong (collectively, Del Socorro et al.).
The Consolidated Petitions sought the annulment of the Decision, dated August 3, 2018, and the Resolution, dated August 27, 2020, of the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA Decision denied Del Socorro et al.'s respective Petitions for Review and affirmed the Consolidated Decision, dated November 21, 2014, and the Order, dated September 13, 2016, of the Office of the Ombudsman finding Del Socorro et al. administratively liable for irregularities in the use of the share of the Provincial Government of Palawan (PGP) in the Malampaya Fund.
The case traces its origins to Presidential Decree No. 910, which created a Special Fund for energy resource development and exploitation programs and projects of the government. Pursuant to that decree and Presidential Decree No. 87, the National Government, represented by the Department of Energy, granted Service Contract No. 38 in favor of a consortium to explore, develop, and produce petroleum resources in the Camago-Malampaya Reservoir off the shores of northwest Palawan. The project was known as the Natural Gas Project, and its revenues comprised the Malampaya Fund.
The Issue
The Court addressed whether the administrative cases against Del Socorro et al. had become moot and academic due to subsequent developments, and whether the investigation of the Office of the Ombudsman was premature because the COA Audit Report had not yet attained finality.
The Ruling
The Court ruled that the administrative cases of Del Socorro et al. are not rendered moot and academic by the subsequent developments. It held that any determination made by the COA in its own audit or investigation is separate or distinct from the conclusions reached by the Office of the Ombudsman, because the COA is not the investigatory arm of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Court also held that the acquittal of Del Socorro and Iglesia of Falsification of Public Documents did not stay its hand, because administrative cases are independent from criminal actions for the same act or omission.
The Court further ruled that the investigation of the Office of the Ombudsman is not premature. It stated that the Office of the Ombudsman is by no means limited by the non-finality of the COA Audit Report, even if such report contains allegations similar to the case pending before it.
By the Numbers
- Nine consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
- CA Decision dated August 3, 2018; CA Resolution dated August 27, 2020.
- Office of the Ombudsman Consolidated Decision dated November 21, 2014; Order dated September 13, 2016.
- Ombudsman cases: OMB-C-A-12-0282-F, OMB-C-A-12-0364-G, OMB-C-A-12-0365-G, and OMB-L-A-13-0042.
- The PGP demanded a share equivalent to 40% of the net government share in the Malampaya Fund, invoking Section 290 of the Local Government Code.
- Presidential Decree No. 910 and Presidential Decree No. 87 cited.
The Court's Reasoning
The Court explained that the Office of the Ombudsman's findings are not dependent on the COA's findings because the COA is not the investigatory arm of the Ombudsman, and that while the COA's findings may carry persuasive weight, they are not binding. Consequently, the Court found no need to admit the COA Decision as it was irrelevant to the determination of the administrative liability of Del Socorro et al.
On the acquittal issue, the Court noted that the quantum of evidence required in an administrative case is less than that required in a criminal case. Administrative cases require only substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The Court added that a single act may offend against two or more distinct but related provisions of law, giving rise to both criminal and administrative liability, which may be prosecuted simultaneously or one after another, subject to the constitutional right against double jeopardy.
Citing Cabrera v. Marcelo, the Court observed that the interest of the COA is solely administrative, and that its investigation does not foreclose the Ombudsman's authority to investigate and determine whether there is a crime to be prosecuted. It also cited Dimayuga v. Office of the Ombudsman, which held that although the COA report may aid the Office of the Ombudsman in conducting its preliminary investigation, such report is not a prerequisite. The factual findings of the Office of the Ombudsman, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive upon the Court absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.
Source: Supreme Court decision in G.R. Nos. 253361, 254677, 254678, 254679, 254680, 254706, 254707, 254708, and 254709, penned by Justice Singh.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.