FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242097. January 30, 2019.]
DOROTEO T. GALAVIA, petitioner,vs. DIAN P. CONSIGNA, ERNALYN D. LIQUIDO, JESSICA G. RUAYA, ROSALENE D. QUIRIDO, GINALYN S. MULLANIDA, ROMANITA S. BOHOL, THELMA D. CUBILLANES, CITADEL DIMPLE L. ELANDAG, JANUA KAREN L. GALANIDA, SANDRA R. TARTAR, JERRY CANTA, JHONA CANTA, HAROLD T. RAMIREZ, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 30, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242097 — Doroteo T. Galavia, Petitioner, v. Dian P. Consigna, Ernalyn D. Liquido, Jessica G. Ruaya, Rosalene D. Quirido, Ginalyn S. Mullanida, Romanita S. Bohol, Thelma D. Cubillanes, Citadel Dimple L. Elandag, Janua Karen L. Galanida, Sandra R. Tartar, Jerry Canta, Jhona Canta, Harold T. Ramirez, Respondents.
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motion for Extension seeking an additional period of 30 days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file his Petition for Review on Certiorari.
After carefully reviewing the allegations, arguments, and issues in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure of petitioner to show that the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao committed any reversible error in its assailed Joint Order dated August 1, 2018 in OMB-M-C-17-0223 and OMB-M-A-17-0243, insofar as OMB-M-C-17-0223 is concerned, as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. On the contrary, the Office of the Ombudsman's August 1, 2018 Joint Order insofar as OMB-M-C-17-0223 is concerned, is in accord with the facts and applicable laws and jurisprudence.
The function of determining what is sufficient evidence to establish probable cause is within the power of the Office of the Ombudsman. Except in cases where there is grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of its power, which is absent in the instant case, the Court has adopted a policy of non-interference in the exercise of the Ombudsman's constitutionally-mandated power.
Moreover, the Court has held that the Ombudsman's primary jurisdiction, albeit concurrent with the Department of Justice (DOJ), to conduct preliminary investigation of crimes involving public officers, without regard to its commission in relation to office, had long been settled in Sen. Honasan II v. The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of DOJ. 1
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the August 1, 2018 Joint Order of the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao in OMB-M-C-17-0223 and OMB-M-A-17-0243 only insofar as OMB-M-C-17-0223 is concerned.
The Manifestation filed by petitioner is NOTED.
The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao is DELETED as party respondent in this case pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 45, 1997 RCP, as amended.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Busuego v. Ombudsman, 719 Phil. 367, 382 (2013).