Flawed argument

In certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court like the petition filed by "Sigaw" and Ulap, questions of facts are generally not permitted, the inquiry being limited essentially to whether or not the respondent tribunal (Comelec) had acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. But in determining abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court must also delve into matters of fact or facts already on record. In doing so, it does not rule on contentious facts or decide questions of fact. The SC only determines whether the tribunal or body committed error of law as to amount to excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion based on the undisputed and admitted facts. This is illustrated in this case of Virgilio (not his true name).

Virgilio was a DECS Regional Director. In an anonymous letter complaint filed with the Ombudsman, Virgilio was implicated in an anomaly involving fake Equivalent Record Forms of several teachers which were the bases of the Plantilla Allocation List approved by Virgilio. The Ombudsman referred the matter to the NBI for a fact finding investigation. Based on the documentary evidence, the NBI found that Virgilio committed falsification of documents and recommended the filing of appropriate charges against him and several teachers.

Acting on the findings, the Ombudsman recommended the indictment of Virgilio and a teacher before the Sandiganbayan for falsification of official documents thru reckless imprudence. Thus an Information was filed against him and his so-accused before the Sandiganbayan. On Virgilio’s motion however, the Sandiganbayan ordered a reinvestigation of the charges. Then after reinvestigation, the Special Prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the charges against him and his co-accused for insufficiency of evidence. This recommendation was however disapproved by the Ombudsman.

Hence Virgilio went to the SC on a petition for certiorari alleging that the Ombudsman gravely erred or was manifestly mistaken in disapproving the recommendation of dismissal of the case against him, which disapproval, he further averred, is based on an erroneous conclusion drawn from undisputed facts.

In dismissing Virgilio’s petition and declaring that the Ombudsman did not abuse his discretion or acted without or in excess of jurisdiction when he disapproved the recommendation of the Special Prosecutor, the SC refused to delve into Virgilio’s contention that the Ombudsman made an erroneous conclusion of fact. It just relied on the facts already on record rather than on the contentious facts that Virgilio is raising. The SC said that the Ombudsman is not duty bound to render anew a statement of facts or elaborate on the applicable law. It is merely determining the propriety and correctness of the recommendation given by the special investigating prosecutor whether probable cause exist or not. The SC said that "it cannot be said that the Ombudsman committed a grave abuse of discretion because he opined differently from the special prosecutor that, under the facts obtaining in the case, there is probable cause to believe that Virgilio is guilty of the offense charged (Nava vs. NBI 455 SCRA 377).

As in the Sigaw petition, the SC did not resolve any question of fact or delve into contentious facts but nevertheless relied on matters of facts already obtaining in the case when it ruled that the Comelec did not abuse its discretion in denying due course to the Sigaw Petition. The SC did not stray into peripheral issues of fact but directly and solely dealt with the issues of law based on the facts already on record. On the other hand, had it remanded the case to the Comelec for verification of signatures, it would have impliedly ruled on a question of fact as to the inadequacy of the signature verification conducted by the Comelec.

E-mail at: [email protected] or [email protected]