SC greenlights trial of cases vs. ex-Ombudsman

The Supreme Court has paved the way for the full-blown trial of the graft cases filed against former Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Mark Jalandoni, who sought for the dismissal of the 69 counts of criminal cases filed against him by the Office of the Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan in 2013.

In a 31-page decision, the SC’s Third Division through Associate Justice Marvic Leonen sustained the March 13, 2013 resolution and October 25, 2013 order of the Ombudsman which found probable cause to charge Jalandoni for 13 counts of falsification of public documents and 56 counts of infidelity in the custody of public documents by way of concealment of documents.

The SC also upheld the resolutions issued by Sandiganbayan dated October 31, 2014, February 23, 2015, November 9, 2018, December 13, 2018, and February 4, 2019, denying his motion to quash the charges filed by the Ombudsman as well as his motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence.

In a motion to quash an information, an accused assails the validity of a criminal complaint filed against him for insufficiency of evidence or defects in the information.

On the other hand, a demurrer to evidence is filed by a party to seek the court’s immediate dismissal of the case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.

In sustaining the anti-graft body’s decision, the high court held that there was no grave abuse of discretion in the preliminary investigation and subsequent finding of probable cause by the Ombudsman against Jalandoni.

“Ultimately, Jalandoni cannot claim that he was deprived of due process. This Court has consistently held that ‘the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or an opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek for a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of’. If the party has been able to form and present their defense and their interest, due process is not violated,” the SC ruled.

The SC also said the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying his motion quash.

Jalandoni had argued that the informations on infidelity in the custody of documents are defective because there is no allegation that he hid, stole, or removed the documents, and that the act was done for an illicit purpose.

He also asserted that the informations for falsification are insufficient because they fail to allege that the meaning of the documents changed.

With regard to the denial of his motion to file demurrer to evidence by the Sandiganyaban, the SC rejected Jalandoni’s claim that his rights to due process were violated because the denial was issued only in a minute resolution and fails to state the basis of its ruling in fact and in law.

“Here, the Minute Resolution denying the Motions is merely an interlocutory order. The Sandiganbayan was not required to issue a full- blown decision distinctly explaining the facts and the law on which the denial was based. Thus, it did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the summary denial,” the tribunal stressed.

“All told, petitioners failed to show grave abuse of discretion in the issuances of the· Office of the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan. Theircontentions and claims must be raised before the Sandiganbayan, the proper forum to thresh out and settle the factual issues,” it said.

 Prior to the controversy, Jalandoni was appointed Assistant Ombudsman in 2005 by former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.

He was appointed as Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon in 2010 and learned that a substantial number of cases were still pending review and approval in the Office of the Ombudsman.

Jalandoni claimed Ombudsman Gutierrez delegated the final approval of the pending cases to him.

The following year, Jalandoni and Gutierrez resigned from office.

Then Overall Deputy Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro assumed office as acting Ombudsman.

Casimiro subsequently ordered an inventory of pending cases and administrative matters in the Office of the Ombudsman.

He discovered that some cases already approved were not released for unknown reasons, while others were superimposed with a patch of paper indicating Jalandoni as the approving authority.

Fifty-six tampered cases had unsigned patches bearing Jalandoni’s name superimposed on Casimiro’s and Guetierrez’s signed names.

The remaining 13 counts had the same patches. However, the pasted sheets of paper were already signed by Jalandoni, meriting accusations of falsification of documents punishable under Article 171 of the same Code.

The Ombudsman resolved that Jalandoni “systematically tampered with official documents” by superimposing with a patch of paper the signature portions of the documents to surreptitiously show that he is the final approving authority.

In justifying his actions, Jalandoni insisted that some cases already acted upon by Casimiro were not yet approved by Gutierrez, which required him to review the documents first.

Meanwhile, other cases had to be put on hold and reviewed further because of questionable patterns of dismissals.

Jalandoni admitted that he instructed his staff to tamper the documents to indicate that he was the new approving authority but claimed that this was done in the regular course of his authority.

He added that he may not be held liable for falsification because it was not shown that his office had actual custody over the documents, and that he altered their meaning.

He said his actions were done in good faith since he was given the authority to act on the cases.