University of the Philippines College of Law

Consti | Atty. Charlie Yu

Case Digest
TOPIC: The Ombudsman
DOCTRINE: Art. X1, Sec. 8-12
CASE Number: G.R. No. 108431
CASE Name: Raro vs. Sandiganbayan
Ponente: Justice Ynares-Santiago

FACTS
The case involves a special civil action assailing the Sandiganbayans resolution on
account that it committed grave abuse of discretion
The petitioner is one Oscar G. Raro, PCSOs Corporate Secretary and Acting
Department Manager of the Special Projects Department, who was accused (with
probable cause) of violating Section 3 of RA 3019
Raro, who was tasked to supervise the Small Town Lottery (STL) Experimental
Project of the PCSO, was accused to have willfully, unlawfully, and criminally
demanded and received on four different occasions the amount totaling to Php 116,
799.99 from Luis Abao, provincial manager of the STL operations in CamNorte

ISSUE
1. Whether or not the Ombudsman conducted the preliminary investigation erroneously
and irregularly?
HELD (including the Ratio Decidendi)

No. because:
1. Contrary to the petitioners contention that the Ombudsman (and Sandiganbayan)
failed to examine the complainant personally and procedurally:
-the referral of the complaint to the NBI is not equivalent to the Ombudsmans
abdication of its constitutional and statutory duty to conduct preliminary
investigation
-what was delegated was only the fact finding function, in preparation for the
preliminary investigation proper, still to be conducted by the Ombudsman (Art XI,
Sec. 13)
-rule II, sec. 2 (d) of Administrative Order No. 07, the investigating officer has
the option to forward the complaint to the appropriate office or official for factfinding investigation
2.
Contrary to the petitioners contention that the preliminary investigation
conducted by the Ombudsman was hasty, malicious, and persecutory, and that it
was based on inadmissible evidence:
-the record clearly shows that the Ombudsman exerted utmost effort to determine
the veracity of the allegations thrown at the petitioner

-"The Court is not unmindful of the duty of the Ombudsman under the
Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770 to act promptly on Complaints brought
before him. But such duty should not be mistaken with a hasty resolution of cases
at the expense of thoroughness and correctness. Judicial notice should be taken of
the fact that the nature of the Office of the Ombudsman encourages individuals
who clamor for efficient government service to freely lodge their Complaints
against wrongdoings of government personnel, thus resulting in a steady stream of
cases reaching the Office of the Ombudsman."
RULING:
Wherefore the petition for certiorari and prohibition is dismissed for lack of merit.