Estrada v. Desierto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute arose when the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) placed Joseph E. Estrada's foreign currency deposit account under constructive distraint. Mr. Estrada contended this action was unlawful and filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against BIR officials and Citibank officers. He alleged violations of Section 8 of the Foreign Currency Deposits Act, Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code (Usurpation of Official Function), and Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman, through its Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau (EPIB), recommended the dismissal of Mr. Estrada's complaint for lack of probable cause. This recommendation was approved, and Mr. Estrada's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. Aggrieved, Mr. Estrada filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, challenging the Ombudsman's dismissal. The Court of Appeals, however, dismissed his petition, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over such matters, citing Republic Act No. 6770 and the case of Fabian v. Desierto. Mr. Estrada's motion for reconsideration of this dismissal was also denied by the Court of Appeals. The Petition: Mr. Estrada filed an Appeal by Certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to have the Court of Appeals take cognizance of his original petition for certiorari. He argued that the Court of Appeals has concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court over original actions for certiorari concerning dispositions of criminal cases by the Ombudsman. He also challenged the constitutionality of Section 14 of Republic Act No. 6770, asserting it improperly expanded the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. Mr. Estrada contended that the doctrine of hierarchy of courts mandated filing his certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals, as per Tirol, Jr. v. Del Rosario.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to entertain original petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal cases. Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint for lack of probable cause.
Ruling
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit and AFFIRMED the resolutions of the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Following the established precedents in Kuizon v. Ombudsman and Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman, the remedy for an aggrieved party questioning the Ombudsman's resolution in criminal or non-administrative cases is a Rule 65 petition filed directly with the Supreme Court. The ruling in Fabian v. Desierto, which allows for an appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, is strictly limited to administrative disciplinary cases. The Court clarified that Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 was declared unconstitutional only insofar as it provided for a Rule 45 appeal to the Supreme Court in administrative cases. Consequently, the hierarchy of courts does not permit the Court of Appeals to take cognizance of certiorari petitions arising from the Ombudsman's criminal investigations. On Issue 2: The Office of the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Regarding the charge of Usurpation of Official Function, Respondent Hefti was the duly designated Officer-In-Charge (OIC) of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) at the time, thus she was legally authorized to exercise the Commissioner's power to issue a constructive distraint. As to the violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, Estrada failed to establish 'undue injury' because there was no evidence he was actually deprived of the ability to withdraw funds or that he even attempted to do so. Regarding the Foreign Currency Deposits Act (Republic Act No. 6426), the Ombudsman's reliance on the 'whereas' clause of Presidential Decree No. 1246 and the Salvacion v. Central Bank case, even if arguably a legal error, did not amount to the 'grave and malevolent' abuse required for certiorari. The Court maintains a policy of non-interference in the Ombudsman's exercise of discretion to determine probable cause unless patent abuse is shown.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals (CA) has jurisdiction over appeals from the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only. In criminal or non-administrative cases, where the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause (or lack thereof) is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, the proper remedy is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed directly with the Supreme Court. The ruling in Fabian v. Desierto, which allows appeals to the CA under Rule 43, does not apply to criminal proceedings conducted by the Ombudsman.