482 Phil. 532
CORONA, J.:
Section 3, paragraphs (b), (e) and (h) of RA 3019 provides:
- That respondent Leonito Catarroja caused the printing of health certificates without serial numbers at his own expense and thereafter, he sold and parted with the said blank and already signed health certificates at
P20.00 each to co-respondent Norma Sanchez and likewise to an unnamed employee of the Business Permits and Licenses Office (BPLO), Office of the Mayor, Quezon City, who then re-sold the same to fixers. In turn, the said fixers disposed of the health certificates to applicants forP70.00 each without official receipts;- That on February 10, 1993, respondent Catarroja signed and issued twenty (20) health certificates to employees of the Max restaurant even without the required physical and medical examinations and immunizations, in consideration of the amount of
P400.00 which was paid by Pons Sepulveda for and in behalf of said employees;- That likewise on the same date aforestated, respondent Catarroja issued health certificate No. 15595-93 to one Alberto de Jesus without the required physical and medical examination and immunization, after the latter had paid an additional and unreceipted amount of
P50.00 demanded by one of the staff in the office of respondent Catarroja. However, the said health certificate is not recorded in the official logbook of his office for duly issued health certificates.[3]
SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. – xxxPrivate respondents counter-alleged that petitioner had neither the personality to sue nor personal knowledge of the veracity of the complaint, which was mere hearsay, not having been supported by any affidavit from the purportedly affected, if not fictitious, health certificate applicants or sanitary inspectors. Also, petitioner did not present any of his witnesses before the investigating committee created by then Quezon City Mayor Ismael Mathay. Thus, private respondents filed counter-charges against petitioner for libel, falsification and perjury.[4]
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.xxx xxx xxx
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.xxx xxx xxx
(h) Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, there being no probable cause to justify further inquiry into the instant charges and counter-charges embodied in the above-entitled cases, let these cases be, as the same are, hereby recommended, DISMISSED.Mr. Raul R. Arnau and Assistant Ombudsman Abelardo L. Aportadera, Jr. reviewed and later on endorsed the aforesaid joint resolution to Overall Deputy Ombudsman Francisco A. Villa, who approved it on June 22, 1994.
SO RESOLVED.[5]
[T]he charge and allegations set forth in the complaint-affidavit taken in juxtaposition with the controverting statements of answering respondents on record, negate the adverse specifications embodied in the said complaint-affidavit to the effect that respondents Leonito Catarroja and Norma Sanchez have violated the provisions of the Anti-Graft Law (R.A. 3019, as amended). As has been above elucidated by their respective counter-statements, it appears that the evidence on record failed to substantiate the alleged anomalies perpetrated by the herein respondents. In the first place, complainant was not able to present evidence disclosing the fact that there are other health certificates which were printed personally by respondent Catarroja. Upon the other hand, the Special Committee which investigated the alleged anomalies in the Sanitation Division of the Quezon City Health Department, came up with the findings that the health certificate issued to Alberto de Jesus alias Celerino dela Cruz, was printed and issued officially by the Quezon City Health Department. On this score, no rebutting evidence whatsoever, was submitted regarding the pre-printed and un-serialized health certificates. Indeed, as put forth by the respondents, complainant did not mind presenting the sworn statements of any of the alleged complaining witnesses mentioned in his complaint-affidavit to support the naked statements against the respondents.In its August 26, 1994 order, public respondent also squarely and thoroughly passed upon the issues raised in petitioner’s motion for partial reconsideration:
To this extent, we are hard put to see how the provisions of the Anti-Graft Law have been violated by the respondents. For one thing, respondents did not cause undue injury to the alleged complaining witnesses and much less, to the alleged applicants. Neither, did respondents give any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of their official functions. At any rate, the Special Committee having been tasked to investigate the denunciations of complainant Councilor Moises Samson which relate to the same factual issues as in the instant case, found no sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation against respondent Leonito Catarroja. In the same manner, the said Committee also failed to uncover any iota of evidence against respondent Norma Sanchez. (See: the Committee Report, pp. 313-343, Records).
All of the above, taken together are more than sufficient to disprove the assertions that anomalies were perpetrated in the Sanitation Division of the Quezon City Health Department bearing on the issuances of health certificates.
There can, therefore, be no other conclusion other than the charge and its specifications are devoid of legal and factual justifications and that for all intents and purposes, the instant case is a mere product of an unfounded suspicion of complainant herein.[8]
[T]he factual and legal issues raised therein had been already amply passed upon, dealt with and considered painstakingly to the extent that the Resolution merited the unqualified approval of the Honorable Overall Deputy Ombudsman. To consider them again on the basis of the same representations and rationalization after they had been shown to be untenable, would perforce, result in the same conclusion and recommendation.For private respondents to be held criminally liable under paragraph (b) of Section 3 of RA 3019, they must have requested or received, directly or indirectly, any gift or benefit for themselves or for another public officer who has to intervene in any contract or transaction with the government. Under paragraph (e), they must have given unwarranted benefits with evident bad faith, gross inexcusable negligence or manifest partiality. Under paragraph (h), they must have had a financial interest, directly or indirectly, in any transaction in which they took part in their official function or in any transaction in which they were prohibited by the Constitution or any law from having any interest therein.
As it were, the essence of the ground remains the same. However, just to set forever at rest the actual and legal issues re-raised in this motion, we shall nevertheless, take them up once again.
Re the alleged printing of other health certificates by respondent Catarroja, let it be said pointedly in this case, that from the testimonies of the employees of the Quezon City Health Department and other offices including complainant’s witness, Alberto de Jesus, the Special Committee which investigated the anomalies supposedly perpetrated by some personnel in the Sanitation Division failed to uncover evidence or documents that tended to show or prove that there are other health certificates which had been printed personally by respondent Catarroja. In fact, per logbook, the health certificate issued to Alberto de Jesus alias Celerino dela Cruz was printed and issued officially by the Quezon City Health Department. Further, the said committee during the course of its investigation had found that the Administrative Division procures sufficient health forms needed by the said Department including health certificates and that there was no evidence presented or turned up which showed that there are fake or unauthorized health certificates (See pp. 138-139, Records).
As regards the assertion of complainant that twenty (20) unserialized health certificates bear the signatures of respondent Catarroja and hence, it would stand to show that respondent Catarroja did its printing personally as the said samples are more than enough to establish the fact of printing.
On this score, suffice it to state that the investigating Committee also noted that from the testimony of witness Mrs. Montojo it is disclosed that she encountered applicants who were already holders of health certificates. However, the same witness expressed her doubts as to the authenticity of the signature of respondent Catarroja. Moreover, respondent Catarroja puts it correctly when he contended that complainant did not witness the transaction between the fixers and the applicants who allegedly bought health certificates without allegedly having undergone the usual physical and medical examinations and immunization and so, he is not a competent witness to testify on the authenticity of the said health certificates as he was not privy to the alleged illegal transaction.
Likewise, respondent Catarroja asseverated that complainant failed to present competent witness before the said special Committee which conducted the fact-finding investigation. Neither, did he present the sworn statements of any of the alleged complaining witnesses mentioned in his complaint-affidavit to substantiate the bare statements against the respondents.[9]
Sec. 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties:Section 15(1), RA 6770 states:
(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.
SEC. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. – xxxFurthermore, the calibration of evidence to asses whether a prima facie graft case exists against private respondents is a question of fact. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, more so in the consideration of the extraordinary writ of certiorari where neither questions of fact nor law are entertained, but only questions of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.[11]
(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government, the investigation of such cases.