ADVERTISEMENT
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239968. July 9, 2018.]
GUILLERMO B. ROXAS, petitioner, vs.HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-REVENUE INTEGRITY PROTECTION SERVICE [DOF-RIPS], REPRESENTED BY JOEL M. APOLONIO AND AGAPITO C. GUARIN AND HONORABLE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, MANILA, BRANCH 23, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 9, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239968 — Guillermo B. Roxas vs. Honorable Office of the Ombudsman, Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service [DOF-RIPS], represented by Joel M. Apolonio and Agapito C. Guarin and Honorable Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila, Branch 23
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Certiorari assailing the Joint Resolution dated July 31, 2017 and Order dated March 26, 2018 of the Ombudsman in OMB-C-F-15-0013 and OMB-C-C-15-0465, the Court resolves to DISMISS the same for failure to sufficiently show that any grave abuse of discretion was committed by the Ombudsman in rendering the challenged Joint Resolution and Order which, on the contrary, appear to be in accord with the facts and the applicable law and jurisprudence. ATICcS
We find no jurisdictional error on the part of the Ombudsman as to warrant a certiorari petition. As held in Dichaves vs. Office of the Ombudsman: 1
As a general rule, this Court does not interfere with the Office of the Ombudsman's exercise of its constitutional mandate. Both the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) give the Ombudsman wide latitude to act on criminal complaints against public officials and government employees. The rule on non-interference is based on the "respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman[.]"
An independent constitutional body, the Office of the Ombudsman is "beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people[,] and [is] the preserver of the integrity of the public service." Thus, it has the sole power to determine whether there is probable cause to warrant the filing of a criminal case against an accused. This function is executive in nature.
The executive determination of probable cause is a highly factual matter. It requires probing into the "existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he [or she] was prosecuted."
The Office of the Ombudsman is armed with the power to investigate. It is, therefore, in a better position to assess the strengths or weaknesses of the evidence on hand needed to make a finding of probable cause. As this Court is not a trier of facts, we defer to the sound judgment of the Ombudsman. 2
We understand that petitioner professes innocence on the charges against him and insists on the absence of bad faith. However, this is a matter of evidence which should be threshed out during trial. ETHIDa
ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby resolves to AFFIRM the July 31, 2017 Joint Resolution and March 26, 2018 Order of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-C-F-15-0013 and OMB-C-C-15-0465.
SO ORDERED." Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member of the First Division per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 813 SCRA 273 (2016).
2.Id. at 297-299.