The Supreme Court has affirmed that its power, not the Court of Appeals, is the venue for reviewing decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases. However, the Court also reiterated its policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman’s investigatory and prosecutorial powers unless there is grave abuse of discretion. This case emphasizes the importance of adhering to proper procedure and respecting the Ombudsman’s authority in investigating and prosecuting criminal cases.

When Public Interest and Due Process Intersect: Scrutinizing the Ombudsman’s Role

This case arose from a criminal complaint filed by members of Kilusang Bayan ng mga Magtitinda ng Bagong Pamilihang Bayan ng Muntinlupa, Inc. (KBMBPM) against several respondents, including then Mayor Ignacio R. Bunye, for alleged violations of RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The complainants accused the respondents of destroying the doors of the KBMBPM office while implementing a Take-Over Order issued by the Department of Agriculture. The Ombudsman, however, excluded Mayor Bunye from the criminal indictment, leading the petitioners to question this exclusion before the Court of Appeals (CA).

The CA dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, citing Section 27 of RA 6770, the Ombudsman Act of 1989. However, the Supreme Court clarified that while the CA correctly dismissed the petition, its reliance on Section 27 of RA 6770 was misplaced. Section 27 applies exclusively to administrative cases and not to criminal cases like the one at bar. In Fabian vs. Desierto, the Supreme Court declared Section 27 unconstitutional for improperly expanding the Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the proper procedure for questioning the Ombudsman’s decisions in criminal cases is to file an original petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court itself, not the Court of Appeals, as established in Kuizon vs. Ombudsman and Mendoza-Arce vs. Ombudsman. Even if the petition had been filed in the correct court, the Supreme Court explained that it would still have been dismissed due to procedural and substantive reasons. First, the petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s resolution, which is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy under the law.

Secondly, the Office of the Ombudsman did not act with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against Mayor Bunye. Grave abuse of discretion is defined as the capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The Court cited its consistent policy of refraining from interfering with the investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman unless there is a compelling reason to do so. This policy is rooted in the constitutional and statutory independence granted to the Ombudsman to shield it from undue influence.

The Court also acknowledged the Ombudsman’s factual finding that there was no specific evidence showing Mayor Bunye’s active participation in the violent implementation of the Take-Over Order. In fact, the Ombudsman noted that Mayor Bunye’s presence at the scene, even if true, would not be improper under Article 87, par. 2 (VI) of the Local Government Code, which allows local officials to call upon law enforcement agencies to restore order when public interest requires. Additionally, the Ombudsman found no evidence of personal interest on Mayor Bunye’s part in implementing the said order.

Moreover, the Court noted that if the Secretary of Agriculture, whose order was being questioned, and the attorney who allegedly orchestrated the implementation of the order were excluded from the complaint, it would be inconsistent to hold Mayor Bunye liable when he was merely present at the scene. As a result, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals denying the petition.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases, and whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against Mayor Bunye.
What did the Court rule regarding the proper venue for appealing Ombudsman decisions?	The Court ruled that petitions for certiorari questioning the Ombudsman’s orders or decisions in criminal cases should be filed with the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals.
What is “grave abuse of discretion”?	Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. In other words, the exercise of power is in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.
Why is the Ombudsman given such broad discretion?	The Constitution and RA 6770 endow the Office of the Ombudsman with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutorial powers, virtually free from legislative, executive, or judicial intervention, in order to insulate it from outside pressure and improper influence.
What should the petitioners have done first before filing a petition for certiorari?	The petitioners should have filed a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman resolution first, as it was the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
What was the Ombudsman’s justification for excluding Mayor Bunye from the criminal indictment?	The Ombudsman found no evidence that Mayor Bunye specifically participated in the violent implementation of the Secretary’s Order. His mere presence, even if true, would not be improper under the Local Government Code.
What legal principle did the court invoke regarding non-interference with the Ombudsman?	The Court consistently refrains from interfering with the investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman absent any compelling reason, a policy based on constitutional, statutory, and practical considerations.
Does Section 27 of RA 6770 apply to criminal cases?	No, Section 27 of RA 6770 applies only to administrative cases. The Supreme Court has declared it unconstitutional insofar as it expands the Court’s appellate jurisdiction without its advice and consent.

This case serves as a reminder of the specific procedures for appealing decisions of the Ombudsman. It also reiterates the limited scope of judicial review over the Ombudsman’s discretionary powers, particularly in the absence of grave abuse of discretion.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Perez vs. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 131445, May 27, 2004