G.R. No. 172218 November 26, 2014
FELICIANO B. DUYON, substituted by his children: MAXIMA R. DUYON-ORSAME, EFREN R. DUYON, NOVILYN R. DUYON, ELIZABETH R. DUYON-SIBUMA, MODESTO R. DUYON, ERROL R. DUYON, and DIVINA R. DUYON-VINLUAN, Petitioners, vs. THE FORMER SPECIAL FOURTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS and ELEONOR P. BUNAG-CABACUNGAN, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Feliciano B. Duyon was issued a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) over a 6,358-square meter parcel of land he had been tilling since 1957. The same land was later covered by a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) and an Emancipation Patent issued to respondent Eleonor P. Bunag-Cabacungan in 1989. Upon discovering the double registration in 2002, Duyon filed administrative and criminal complaints with the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) against Bunag-Cabacungan and her husband, Eutiquio Cabacungan (a DAR employee), alleging they used their official positions to secure the title and that Bunag-Cabacungan misrepresented her civil status in her application. The OMB found the spouses guilty of simple misconduct and recommended the filing of an Information for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 . Upon motions for reconsideration, the OMB modified its ruling, dismissing the charges against the husband but affirming the criminal recommendation and reducing the administrative penalty against Bunag-Cabacungan. Bunag-Cabacungan filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the administrative aspect. Duyon also filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA assailing the OMB’s modified order. The CA dismissed Duyon’s petition for using the wrong mode of appeal and for lack of jurisdiction. However, in Bunag-Cabacungan’s case (CA-G.R. SP No. 86630), the CA proceeded to rule on the criminal aspect, reversing the OMB and dismissing the complaint for lack of probable cause. Duyon filed the present petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in acting upon and dismissing the criminal aspect of the case despite having no jurisdiction over decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in reversing the Ombudsman’s findings of probable cause.

RULING

1. Yes, the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that the CA had no jurisdiction to review the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause in the criminal case. Jurisprudence establishes that decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases are unappealable. The proper remedy, if the finding is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed directly with the Supreme Court, not with the CA. The CA, in its earlier resolution dismissing Duyon’s petition, correctly stated this rule. However, it subsequently violated this very rule by substantively reviewing and reversing the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause in Bunag-Cabacungan’s case, thereby exceeding its jurisdiction.
2. The Supreme Court did not reach the merits of the probable cause finding. Having determined that the CA acted without jurisdiction, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to rule on the correctness of the CA’s assessment of the evidence or its conclusion that no probable cause existed. The CA’s decision and resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 86630, insofar as they reversed the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause and dismissed the criminal complaint, were annulled and set aside for having been issued without jurisdiction. The Ombudsman’s Joint Order dated August 27, 2004, which affirmed the recommendation to file an information for violation of R.A. No. 3019 against Bunag-Cabacungan, was reinstated.