GR 151800; (November, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 151800; November 5, 2009
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, represented by HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, Petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF MARGARITA VDA. DE VENTURA, represented by PACITA V. PASCUAL, EMILIANO EUSEBIO, JR., and CARLOS RUSTIA, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondents filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against Zenaida Palacio and spouses Edilberto and Celerina Darang, DAR officials, for Falsification of Public Documents and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. They alleged that Palacio designated Celerina Darang to investigate claims against her own husband, Edilberto, resulting in a favorable report supported by falsified documents, which Palacio then used to recommend awarding a disputed landholding to Edilberto.
The Ombudsman dismissed the falsification charge for insufficiency of evidence and provisionally dismissed the graft charge, pending the outcome of a related DARAB case. Respondents’ motions for reconsideration were denied. They then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court, which referred it to the Court of Appeals. The CA partially granted the petition, upholding the dismissal for falsification but reversing the provisional dismissal for graft, ordering the filing of appropriate criminal charges. The Ombudsman filed this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the Ombudsman’s resolution provisionally dismissing a criminal complaint for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction. The Court emphasized the settled doctrine that the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals extends only to decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases, pursuant to the ruling in Fabian v. Desierto. It cannot review the Ombudsman’s orders, directives, or decisions in criminal or non-administrative cases. The proper remedy for a party aggrieved by the Ombudsman’s finding on the existence of probable cause in a criminal case is to file an original action for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion. Since the CA acted without jurisdiction over the subject matter, its decision reversing the Ombudsman’s provisional dismissal was void. The Supreme Court thus granted the petition, annulled the CA decision and resolution, and reinstated the Ombudsman’s resolution. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the Ombudsman’s provisional dismissal, as it was a prudent exercise of prosecutorial power awaiting the outcome of a pending agrarian case central to the graft allegation.