The Ombudsman found probable cause to charge with plunder the provincial governor, vice governor, treasurer, budget officer, and accountant. An Information for plunder was filed with the Sandiganbayan against the provincial officials except for the treasurer who was granted immunity when he agreed to cooperate with the Ombudsman in the prosecution of the case. Immediately, the governor filed with the Sandiganbayan a petition for certiorari against the Ombudsman claiming there was grave abuse of discretion in excluding the treasurer from the Information.
a.) Was the remedy taken by the governor correct? (2%)
b.) Will the writ of mandamus lie to compel the Ombudsman to include the treasurer in the Information? (3%)
c.) Can the Special Prosecutor move for the discharge of the budget officer to corroborate the testimony of the treasurer in the course of presenting its evidence? (2%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
[a] No, the certiorari petition was improper; [b] no, mandamus will not lie; and [c] no, the budget officer cannot be discharged. Under settled jurisprudence, certiorari questioning Ombudsman resolutions in criminal cases must
Unlock the full Remedial Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
In which court should a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 be filed to question a resolution of the Ombudsman in a criminal case?
A petition for certiorari challenging resolutions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases must be filed exclusively with the Supreme Court.
Will a writ of mandamus lie to compel the Ombudsman to include a person in a criminal Information?
Mandamus does not lie against discretionary prosecutorial acts such as the Ombudsman's grant of immunity.
What is required under Rule 119, Section 17 before an accused may be discharged to become a state witness?
Rule 119, Section 17 requires absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused before discharge.
Why is discharging an accused merely to corroborate existing prosecution testimony improper under Rule 119?
Choices available with full access.
Does the Sandiganbayan possess jurisdiction over a Rule 65 petition for certiorari challenging an Ombudsman resolution in a criminal proceeding?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Certiorari Jurisdiction
Under Section 14 of Republic Act No. 6770 and established jurisprudence, decisions or resolutions of the Ombudsman in criminal matters finding probable cause or granting immunity may only be questioned via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed before the Supreme Court. The Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over extraordinary writs of certiorari seeking to annul or modify interlocutory orders or investigatory resolutions of the Ombudsman. Consequently, filing a certiorari petition with the Sandiganbayan to challenge the Ombudsman's exclusion of a co-accused from the criminal Information is procedurally improper.
2. Mandamus Against Discretion
The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that lies only to compel the performance of a ministerial duty clearly enjoined by law. It cannot be issued to direct or control the exercise of discretion by an executive officer or administrative body. The Ombudsman possesses broad discretionary authority under Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6770 to grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony is necessary in criminal proceedings. Because granting immunity and determining whom to prosecute involve discretionary prosecutorial functions, mandamus will not lie to compel the Ombudsman to include a witness in an Information.
3. State Witness Discharge
Under Rule 119, Section 17 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the court may discharge an accused to become a state witness only if there is absolute necessity for their testimony. Absolute necessity means that the prosecution has no other direct or corroborative evidence to establish the crime charged. Where the prosecution already possesses sufficient testimony from an immune witness covering the essential elements of the offense, discharging another co-accused merely to corroborate that existing testimony fails the strict test of absolute necessity, rendering a motion for discharge improper.