Perez v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, members of the Kilusang Bayan ng mga Magtitinda ng Bagong Pamilihang Bayan ng Muntinlupa, Inc. (KBMBPM), filed criminal complaints against several respondents, including then Mayor Ignacio R. Bunye. The complaints alleged violations of RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, stemming from the alleged destruction of the KBMBPM office doors while serving a Take-Over Order issued by then Agriculture Secretary Carlos G. Dominguez. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the criminal complaints on April 11, 1997, excluding respondent Bunye from the indictment. Petitioners challenged this dismissal by filing a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA) on September 1, 1997. The CA dismissed this petition for lack of jurisdiction, citing Section 27 of RA 6770, and subsequently denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the CA's resolution through an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They argue that the CA erred in dismissing their petition for certiorari and mandamus. The core of their argument is that the Ombudsman committed a grave abuse of discretion in excluding Mayor Bunye from the criminal charges. The Supreme Court, however, finds that while the CA correctly dismissed the petition, it erroneously invoked Section 27 of RA 6770. The Court clarifies that for criminal cases, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 should be filed directly with the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals, and that the Ombudsman did not act with grave abuse of discretion in its factual findings.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari and mandamus for lack of jurisdiction. Whether the Office of the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint against respondent Mayor Ignacio R. Bunye.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari and mandamus filed before it. However, the CA's ratio decidendi was partially erroneous as Section 27 of RA 6770 applies only to administrative cases, not criminal cases. Nevertheless, even if the petition were filed directly with the Supreme Court, it would still be dismissed. The Ombudsman did not act without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against respondent Bunye.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Court of Appeals' Jurisdiction: The Court reiterated that the nature of the case determines the proper remedy and appellate court. For administrative cases decided by the Ombudsman, appeal is to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. For criminal cases, the proper remedy is an original petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed with the Supreme Court. While the CA correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari and mandamus, it erroneously invoked Section 27 of RA 6770, which pertains to administrative cases. However, the petitioners erred in filing their petition for certiorari questioning the Ombudsman's dismissal of a criminal case in the Court of Appeals; it should have been filed directly with the Supreme Court, as established in Kuizon vs. Ombudsman and Mendoza-Arce vs. Ombudsman. On the Ombudsman's Exercise of Jurisdiction: Even if the petition had been filed in the Supreme Court, it would have been dismissed. Firstly, petitioners should have filed a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman resolution, which is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Secondly, the Office of the Ombudsman did not act without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of duty. The Ombudsman's factual finding that no evidence showed Mayor Bunye's active participation in the alleged destruction of the doors, and that his presence, if true, could be justified under the Local Government Code, was a reasonable exercise of professional judgment. The Ombudsman also noted that other respondents, including Secretary Dominguez, were dropped from the complaint, making Bunye's liability questionable for the same act. The Ombudsman's exclusion of Bunye was therefore in order.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed a petition for certiorari and mandamus questioning the Ombudsman's dismissal of a criminal complaint, as such petitions concerning criminal cases should be filed directly with the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in excluding a respondent from a criminal indictment based on factual findings.