SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240852. April 10, 2019.]
MARYKNOLL T. CAPILI-IBRAHIM, petitioner, vs.OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND RICKY A. POLLO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240852 — Maryknoll T. Capili-Ibrahim versus Office of the Ombudsman and Ricky A. Pollo
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Office of the Ombudsman's Resolution 1 dated August 23, 2017 and Order 2 dated January 15, 2018, the Court resolves to DISMISS the Petition and AFFIRM the assailed Resolution and Order, finding probable cause to indict petitioner, Atty. Maryknoll T. Capili-Ibrahim, for one (1) count of violation of Article 171 (4) 3 of the Revised Penal Code.
For the purpose of filing a criminal information, probable cause has been defined to constitute such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof. 4 As long as substantial evidence supports the Ombudsman's ruling, the same will not be overturned. In this case, there is substantial evidence from the Bureau of Immigration that petitioner left the country on June 18, 2011 and returned on July 22, 2011. There is also a photocopy of her sick leave application, dated June 6, 2011, for the period of June 21 to 27, 2011 where she wrote that she would accompany her mother to the doctor. She even attached a medical certificate to her sick leave application in support thereof, wherein the doctor even stated that she accompanied her mother on June 21 to 27, 2011. The Ombudsman found the said photocopy of her sick leave application sufficient as secondary evidence pursuant to Section 3 (a), 5 Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, since the documents subject of the subpoena duces tecum "were not found in the records" of the Civil Service Commission Regional Office IV. As held in Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Desierto, 6 the Court has refrained from interfering with the constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman, unless the exercise of such discretionary powers is tainted by grave abuse of discretion.
SO ORDERED. (PERLAS-BERNABE, J., on leave)"
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 40-49.
2.Id. at 50-53.
3. ART. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastical minister. — The penalty of prisión mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:
xxx xxx xxx
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts[.] (Emphasis supplied)
4.PAO v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 197613, November 22, 2017, p. 8.
5. SEC. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror[.]
6. 563 Phil. 517, 526 (2007).