CASE DIGEST : GALVANTE VS CASIMIRO G.R. No. 162808 April 22, 2008

 FACTS : The case involves a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65 assailing the Ombudsman's Resolution dismissing for lack of probable cause a criminal complaint for Arbitrary Detention, Illegal Search, and Grave Threats filed by former police officer Feliciano Galvante against SPO4 Benjamin Conde and several police officers. On May 14, 2001, while on his way to Sitio Cahi-an, Trento, Agusan del Sur, Galvante was stopped by the respondent police officers, who pointed long firearms at him, searched his vehicle without a warrant, recovered a .38 caliber pistol concealed beneath the floor mat, confiscated the firearm and ammunition, and later detained him until May 16, 2001 after he posted bail. An Information for Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition in relation to COMELEC Resolution No. 3258 (gun ban) was thereafter filed against him. Galvante also instituted administrative and criminal complaints against the officers, alleging that the search and detention violated his constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

During the proceedings, SPO4 Conde claimed that he merely searched Galvante's person after allegedly seeing the firearm in plain view, while the other police officers later admitted that the firearm was actually recovered only after Conde searched Galvante's vehicle. Galvante subsequently executed an Affidavit of Desistance as to the other officers but maintained his complaint against Conde. Meanwhile, the Internal Affairs Service (IAS) found the officers administratively liable for grave misconduct, and, in the related criminal case, the prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the illegal possession charge, concluding that the warrantless search was unconstitutional. The Regional Trial Court adopted the recommendation and dismissed the criminal case. Despite these findings, the Ombudsman dismissed Galvante's criminal complaint, ruling that the incident arose from a valid warrantless arrest and that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties negated criminal liability, prompting Galvante to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court through a Rule 65 petition.

ISSUE : WON the ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion

HELD : The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and held that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint for Illegal Search, Arbitrary Detention, and Grave Threats. The Court reiterated that the Constitution vests upon the Ombudsman the authority to determine the existence of probable cause, and courts will not interfere with such determination absent grave abuse of discretion. Although the Ombudsman incorrectly relied on the validity of the warrantless search and the Affidavit of Desistance, the dismissal was nevertheless proper because illegal search, by itself, is not a criminal offense under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Articles 129 and 130 of the RPC penalize only the malicious procurement or abuse of a search warrant and the searching of a domicile without the required witnesses, neither of which was alleged in the complaint. The proper remedies for an unconstitutional warrantless search are civil damages under Article 32 in relation to Article 2219 of the Civil Code, and administrative sanctions under Section 41 of Republic Act No. 6975, not a criminal action before the Ombudsman.

The Court likewise sustained the dismissal of the complaint for Arbitrary Detention under Article 124 of the RPC, finding that petitioner himself admitted in his affidavit that it was Police Chief Rocacorba, not the respondent police officers, who ordered and caused his detention. Since the respondents neither detained petitioner nor participated in his confinement, one of the essential elements of arbitrary detention was absent. The complaint for Grave Threats was also correctly dismissed because it rested solely on petitioner's allegation that the officers pointed their firearms at him, which was insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman acted within its discretion in finding no probable cause and dismissing the criminal complaint.