FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242848. January 16, 2019.]
LCDR. EDUARDO B. SILVERO, petitioner,vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES, CDR. RHOBINSON R. ESTRELLA, PN SG 25 AND LTC. DONATO A. NEGOSA, SG 24, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 16, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242848 — LCDR. Eduardo B. Silvero, Petitioner, vs. Office of the Ombudsman-Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices, CDR. Rhobinson R. Estrella, PN SG 25 and LTC. Donato A. Negosa, SG 24, Respondents.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments therein, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant Petition for Certiorari assailing the Joint Resolution dated January 19, 2017 and Joint Order dated July 25, 2018 of the Ombudsman in OMB-P-C-16-0077.
The instant Petition seeks to nullify the finding of the Ombudsman that there was no probable cause to indict respondents Estrella and Negosa for trespass to dwelling, malicious mischief, and unjust vexation. However, where review of the actions of a tribunal relative to a criminal case is brought before this Court, the People is the real party in interest and only the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has the authority to represent the State under Section 35 (1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code. 1 Since petitioner, in effect, seeks to reinstate the subject dismissed criminal cases, he is not the proper party to seek review of the adverse resolution and order of the Ombudsman, but the OSG.
Further, a finding of lack of probable cause is a finding of fact by the Ombudsman which is not reviewable by this Court, unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. As a general rule, this Court does not interfere with the Ombudsman's determination of the existence or absence of probable cause, because it is the Ombudsman who 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
In the case at bar, petitioner failed to clearly demonstrate that the challenged resolution and order of the Ombudsman were tainted with grave abuse of discretion. On the contrary, the Ombudsman found, on the basis of the evidence on record, that petitioner violated the naval housing rules and regulations, thus, resulting in his eviction in the manner prescribed in the aforesaid rules.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the Joint Resolution dated January 19, 2017 and Joint Order dated July 25, 2018 of the Ombudsman in OMB-P-C-16-0077.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Jimenez vs. Sorongon, G.R. No. 178607, December 5, 2012, 687 SCRA 151, 159-161.
2.Dichaves v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 206310-11, December 7, 2016, 813 SCRA 273, 299.