JUSTICE MARTIN VILLARAMA, JR.: THE DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST THOSE IN PUBLIC OFFICE DURING A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS A FUNCTION THAT BELONGS TO THE OMBUDSMAN

The Ombudsman is vested with the sole power to investigate and prosecute, motu proprio or upon the complaint of any person, any act or omission which appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient (Vergara v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 174567, March 12, 2009, 580 SCRA 693, 708.). It has the discretion to determine whether a criminal case, given its attendant facts and circumstances, should be filed or not.

As explained in Esquivel v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 137237, September 17, 2002, 389: The Ombudsman is empowered to determine whether there exists reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and, thereafter, to file the corresponding information with the appropriate courts.  Settled is the rule that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman’s exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers without good and compelling reasons to indicate otherwise.  Said exercise of powers is based upon his constitutional mandate and the courts will not interfere in its exercise.  The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman, but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, innumerable petitions seeking dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Ombudsman will grievously hamper the functions of the office and the courts, in much the same way that courts will be swamped if they had to review the exercise of discretion on the part of public prosecutors each time they decided to file an information or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant. (M.A. JIMENEZ ENTERPRISES, INC., VS. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN, JESUS P.  CAMMAYO G.R. NO. 155307, JUNE 6, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).