FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240147. August 8, 2018.]
REBECCA SIMPO, petitioner, vs. THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND NOEL A. DEMOTICA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 8, 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 240147 — Rebecca Simpo v. The Office of the Ombudsman and Noel A. Demotica
After a judicious review of the allegations contained in the instant Petition for Certiorari, as well as the attachments thereto, the Court notes that the same: (a) lacks verified statement as to the date of receipt of the assailed Joint Resolution; (b) fails to show that the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal case for violation of Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019 (in OMB-M-C-17-0200) against private respondent Noel A. Demotica; and (c) constitutes a wrong mode of appeal in assailing the Joint Resolution dismissing for lack of substantial evidence the case against private respondent seeking to hold him administratively liable (in OMB-M-A-17-0218) for Grave Misconduct and Gross Neglect of Duty.
The Office of the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint filed by petitioner against private respondent after determining that there was no probable cause to charge and prosecute him for violation of Section 3 (b) of RA 3019. It held that petitioner's bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, were insufficient to establish probable cause against private respondent. This Court cannot pass upon the sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence to determine the existence of probable cause. The tenet is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutorial powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but also upon pragmatism. Otherwise, this Court will be clogged with an unending list of cases assailing the investigatory proceedings conducted by said office with regard to complaints filed before it to determine if there is probable cause. 1
Petitioner also seeks the reversal of the Office of the Ombudsman's Joint Resolution dismissing the administrative charges she filed against private respondent for Grave Misconduct and Gross Neglect of Duty (in OMB-M-A-17-0218). In this regard, it has been established that all appeals from decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases may be taken to the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. 2 Thus, the Petition for Certiorari assailing the Ombudsman's Joint Resolution finding no substantial evidence against private respondent for committing Grave Misconduct and Gross Neglect of Duty (in OMB-M-A-17-0218) must be dismissed for being an improper remedy. Her recourse is with the CA via Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. DETACa
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant Petition for Certiorari.
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.Kalalo v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., 633 Phil. 160 (2010).
2.Francisco v. Desierto, G.R. No. 154117, October 2, 2009, 602 SCRA 50, 112-114.