G.R. No. 153578 ; January 28, 2005
VICENTE C. JIMENEZ, EUGENIO BERNARDO, AND VENERANDO R. HABER, petitioners, vs. EULOGIO TOLENTINO, JR., LETICIA TOLENTINO, GRAFT INVESTIGATION OFFICER II THELMA CRUZ, and JOSE O. MONTERO, JR., OMB PROSECUTOR II, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from agrarian reform proceedings involving lands owned by the late Dolores Banzon, whose heirs are respondents Eulogio Tolentino, Jr. and Leticia Tolentino. Petitioners, who were Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) officials, implemented the land transfer program under Presidential Decree No. 27. They facilitated the subdivision survey, issuance of Emancipation Patents, and registration of Deeds of Transfer in favor of tenant-beneficiaries, including some whose qualifications were contested by the landowners. Years later, the Tolentinos applied for retention rights under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, but petitioner DAR Director Eugenio Bernardo denied their application based on the recommendation of petitioner Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer Vicente Jimenez.
The Tolentinos filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, alleging violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Ombudsman found probable cause and recommended the filing of an information. Petitioners moved for reinvestigation, which was denied. They then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking to nullify the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, ruling that certiorari was not the proper remedy and that the petition was filed out of time.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari and in upholding the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause against the petitioners.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. On the procedural issue, the Court held that while the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition, its reasoning was flawed. Section 14 of Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act) provides that any appeal or application for remedy against a decision or finding of the Ombudsman may be raised to the Supreme Court only on a pure question of law. Therefore, the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to review the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause via a petition for certiorari. The proper remedy for the petitioners, if they wished to challenge the Ombudsman’s ruling, was to file a petition for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court under Rule 65, but only on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.
On the substantive issue, the Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause. The determination of probable cause is an executive function, and courts generally do not interfere with the Ombudsman’s exercise of this power unless there is a clear showing of arbitrariness. The petitioners’ defense—that they were merely performing their official duties in implementing agrarian reform laws—is a matter of defense best ventilated during a full trial on the merits before the Sandiganbayan. The Ombudsman did not act capriciously in finding sufficient basis to proceed with the prosecution based on the allegations that the petitioners acted with manifest partiality or gross inexcusable negligence in including unqualified beneficiaries, to the detriment of the landowners.