SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225881. August 31, 2016.]
TOMAS A. RIVERAL, petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE-OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS) AND JOHNNY TING, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 31 August 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225881 — Tomas A. Riveral vs. Office of the Ombudsman, Field Investigation Office-Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) and Johnny Ting.
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DISMISS the instant Petition for Certiorari for (a) lack of proper verification as the one attached to the Petition is based on affiant's own knowledge, belief, and authentic records in violation of Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court and (b) failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show that any grave abuse of discretion was committed in the Office of the Ombudsman in issuing the December 14, 2015 Joint Resolution and June 14, 2016 Order in OMB-V-C-14-0556. On the contrary, they appear to be in accord with the facts and the applicable law and jurisprudence.
The Supreme 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. Morever, in Republic vs. Desierto, 1 this Court explained that:
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, innumerable petitions seeking dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Ombudsman will grievously hamper the functions of the office and the courts, in much the same way that courts will be swamped if they had to review the exercise of discretion on the part of public prosecutors each time they decided to file an information or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to DISMISS the Petition for Certiorari and AFFIRM the December 14, 2015 Joint Resolution of the Ombudsman insofar as it found probable cause to indict petitioner Tomas A. Riveral for violation of Section 65 (a) (2) of Republic Act No. 9184 in OMB-V-C-14-0556.
The Manifestation dated August 22, 2016 indicating the current MCLE Compliance Number of counsel for petitioner Atty. Anabel G. Pulvera-Paje is NOTED. IDSEAH
SO ORDERED. (Brion, J., on leave)."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court