Murao, Jose Pepito G.

III Topic: Restraint on Criminal Prosecution

Mendoza-Arce v. Ombudsman
G.R. No. 149148 April 5, 2002
Mendoza.:
FACTS:

 Private Respondent Santiago Villaruz was the original administrator of his mother’s
estate but he was later stripped of such title due to patent neglect and failure to comply
to court orders.
 Santiago’s brother, Nicolas, was appointed as regular administrator by the trial court,
and Santiago’s attempt to get his other brother Jose Maria to be appointed was denied.
 However, in accordance to a certification executed by their mother, the 3 siblings agreed
to honor the lease of a certain property to Santiago.
 Clerk of Court of Roxas City Susan Mendoza-Arce, in compliance to the trial court
judge’s order denying oppostion to Nicolas’ appointment, prepared a Letter of
Administration indicating that Nicolas had full authority to take possession and perform
all other acts necessary for the preservation of their mother’s properties.
 In response to the Letter of Administration, Santiago filed a case tot the Ombudsman
causing undue injury under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and for falsification
by a public officer by attributing statements other than those made by them, against
Mendoza-Arce.
 Santiago alleged that Mendoza-Arce attributed Nicolas’ appointment to a wrong judge
(case was re-assigned) and that the wording of the subject Letter of Administration gave
Nicolas authority to take control of the property Santiago was leasing.
 Although for Mendoza-Arce, she just merely adopted the prescribed form in the Manual
for Clerks of Court and that she was just performing ministerial functions, the Graft
Investigation Officer found a prima facie case against her, hence this petition for
Certiorari filed by Mendoza-Arce.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not it is proper to bar criminal prosection of Mendoza-Arce?
HELD
1. Yes, generally, criminal prosection cannot be enjoined and it is the SC’s policy not to
interfere in preliminary investigations, however, the prima facie case against Mendoza-
Arce is based on a ministerial duty incompatible with manifest partiality, evident bad
faith, or inexcusable negligence. Also there is no showing of bad faith, partiality, or
negligence in Mendoza-Arce’s omission of Santiago’s lease in the Letter of
Administration.
2. Moreover, it is essential in falsifaction that criminal intent is present in attributing to a
participant an act not his, but such criminal intent was absent in Mendoza-Arce’s
issuance of the Letter of Administration.
3. Where there is no showing of a prima facie case, the SC can interfere in the case’s early
stages and DISMISS the same. Petition Granted.