Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Meanwhile, Secretary Datumanong went to Vienna, Austria, to attend a The Assistant Ombudsman recommended the approval of the
conference. Undersecretary Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez was designated recommendation (in other words to dismiss); the Deputy Ombudsman
as Acting Secretary of the DOJ. approved the same.
28 Sept 2003, a Sunday, Raman arrived at NAIA for his trip to Singapore Baviera received a copy of the Resolution on July 26, 2004 and filed an MR
but was apprehended by BI agents and NAIA officials based on the HDO of of the resolution on August 2, 2004 (July 31, 2004 was a Saturday). Acting
Page 1 of 2
on the motion, Zoleta issued a Resolution on August 10, 2003, we ruled that appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in
recommending its denial for lack of merit. Deputy Ombudsman Orlando administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under
Casimiro again approved the recommendation. Baviera received a copy of Rule 43... ”
the resolution on September 14, 2004.
For a criminal case, particularly those assailing a finding of probable cause
16 Nov 2004, Baviera filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the or a lack thereof, then such as this the case at bar (CAB), it should be a R65
CA, assailing the resolutions of the Ombudsman. The CA dismissed: to the SC.
a. It should have been a 65 to the SC, not the CA, in accordance with Court
in Enemecio v. Office of the Ombudsman.
b. Petitioner filed an MR, insisting that his remedy was correct (Basis:
Fabian v Desierto). He insisted that the Office of the Ombudsman is a quasi-
judicial agency of the government, and under BP 129, the CA has
concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court over a Rule 65. He asserted
that a Rule 65 with the CA conformed to the hierarchy of courts (People v.
Cuaresma).
20 July 2005, CA denied (Fabian v Desierto only applies when it’s an admin
case). Hence this Rule 45 (filed 18 Aug 2005) to the SC.
ISSUE(S):
W/N R65 to the CA was proper: [NO, in numerous cases and as affirmed
in Pontejos v. Office of the Ombudsman, the SC ruled that the remedy to
challenge the Resolution of the Ombudsman at the conclusion of a
preliminary investigation was to file R65]
HELD:
In 1999, SC ruled in Tirol, Jr. v. Del Rosario that the remedy of the
aggrieved party from a resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman finding
the presence or absence of probable cause in criminal cases was to file a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in this Court. The Court reiterated its
ruling in Kuizon v. Desierto and Tirol, Jr. v. Del Rosario. And on February 22,
2006, in Pontejos v. Office of the Ombudsman, the Court ruled that the remedy
to challenge the Resolution of the Ombudsman at the conclusion of a
preliminary investigation was to file a petition for certiorari in this Court
under Rule 65.