CHIEF SUPT. ROMEO ACOP and SENIOR SUPT. FRANCISCO G. ZUBIA, vs. THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and HON. MANUEL B. CASACLANG, in his capacity as the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 120422
- Promulgated: 1995-09-27
- Ponente: Davide, Jr., J.
Doctrine
The Ombudsman may assign cases involving non-military personnel to the Deputy Ombudsman for Military Affairs; such referral is not irregular per se.
The preliminary evaluation required under the Office of the Ombudsman procedures is merely preliminary in nature and scope; its conduct involves discretion not lightly disturbed absent a showing of grave abuse.
Facts
The cases were filed under Rule 65 and consolidated because they arose from the same factual milieu; at oral arguments the Court limited the issues (jurisdiction and alleged grave abuse in preliminary investigation).
Petitioners in G.R. No. 120422 asked the Court to re-examine a prior ruling; a corollary issue was whether the Deputy Ombudsman for Military may investigate matters involving civilian personnel.
The Acting Ombudsman referred the Kuratong Baleleng case to respondent Deputy Ombudsman for Military, who created a panel of investigators.
Issues
Whether it is the Office of the Ombudsman or the Office of the Special Prosecutor which has jurisdiction over the complaint in question.
Whether Deputy Ombudsman for Military Manuel Casaclang committed grave abuse of discretion by setting the case for preliminary investigation and requiring petitioners to submit counter-affidavits before preliminary evaluation as required by Sec. 2, Rule II of Administrative Order No. 07.
Whether the Deputy Ombudsman for Military has authority to conduct investigations involving civilian personnel of the Government.
Ruling
The Ombudsman may refer cases involving non-military (civilian) personnel for investigation by the Deputy Ombudsman for Military Affairs; no irregularity attended the referral in these cases.
The required evaluation is preliminary in nature; the exercise of discretion in conducting it was not shown to be abused in this case.
The petitions and the motion to cite Acting Ombudsman Francisco Villa in contempt are denied for lack of merit; decision is immediately executory and costs are taxed against the petitioners.