SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 227335. November 7, 2016.]
APOLINARIA H. BALISTOY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND HON. CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES IN HER CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 07 November 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 227335 — Apolinaria H. Balistoy vs. Court of Appeals and Hon. Conchita Carpio-Morales in her capacity as Ombudsman, Republic of the Philippines
The Court of Appeals was correct in dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction over the resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman finding probable cause to indict petitioner for five (5) counts of Malversation of Public Funds through the Use of Falsified Documents. This Court has held that, "where the findings of the Ombudsman on the existence of probable cause in criminal cases is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65." 1 The proper forum for petitions against orders and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal cases is the Supreme Court. Petitioner thus availed of the wrong remedy before the wrong forum in filing her petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
Even if we consider the merits of the case, the Court finds no compelling reason to disturb the Office of the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause against petitioner. This Court has maintained a policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman's exercise of investigatory and prosecutory powers in determining the existence of probable cause. The Ombudsman has the Constitutional mandate to determine whether there exists reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and, thereafter, to file the corresponding information with the appropriate court. In the absence of grave abuse of discretion, this Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of her investigatory and prosecutory powers. Moreover, in Republic vs. Desierto2 this Court explained:
The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman, but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the courts will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped if they could be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant. ATICcS
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to DISMISS the instant Petition for Certiorari for failure to show that the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 09776 has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in issuing the January 13, 2016 and July 25, 2016 Resolutions.
SO ORDERED. (Mendoza, J., on leave)."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Enemecio vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 464 Phil. 102, 113 (2004).
2. 541 Phil. 57, 67-68 (2007).