Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    Office of The Ombudsman v. Heirs of Vda. de Ventura, G.R. No. 151800, November 5, 2009

    Uploaded by

    Mac Jan Emil De Oca

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Office of The Ombudsman v. Heirs of Vda. de Ventura, G.R. No. 151800, November 5, 2009

    Uploaded by

    Mac Jan Emil De Oca
    9 views1 page

    Original Title

    Office of the Ombudsman v. Heirs of Vda. de Ventura, G.R. No. 151800, November 5, 2009

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    9 views1 page

    Office of The Ombudsman v. Heirs of Vda. de Ventura, G.R. No. 151800, November 5, 2009

    Uploaded by

    Mac Jan Emil De Oca

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Office of the Ombudsman v. Heirs of Vda. de Ventura, G.R. No.

    151800,
    November 5, 2009
    Peralta, J.

    Facts:
    Respondents filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman,
    accusing Zenaida H. Palacio and spouses Edilberto and Celerina Darang of
    Falsification of Public Documents and Violation of Section 3, paragraph (e)
    of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
    Allegedly, Palacio, the then officer-in-charge of the Department of Agrarian
    Reform (DAR) Office in San Jose City, Nueva Ecija, designated Celerina
    Darang, Senior Agrarian Reform Program Technologist, to investigate their
    claims against Edilberto Darang, Celerina's husband. Celerina conducted an
    investigation and submitted a favorable report supported by falsified public
    documents. Palacios then recommended awarding the disputed landholding to
    Edilberto Darang based on Celerina Darang’s report.

    In response to the complaint, the petitioner issued a Resolution


    recommending the dismissal of falsification charges due to insufficient
    evidence and the provisional dismissal of the violation of R.A. No. 3019
    charge, pending the outcome of DARAB Case No. 0040. Despite several
    motions for reconsideration, the Resolution stood. The respondents filed a
    petition for certiorari and mandamus, which was referred to the CA. The CA
    denied the petition regarding the dismissal of falsification charges but granted
    it concerning the provisional dismissal of the R.A. 3019 charge. The CA
    reversed the dismissal and ordered the filing of appropriate criminal charges
    against the individual respondents. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was
    subsequently denied, leading to the filing of a petition for a review on
    certiorari.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review the
    resolution issued by the Office of the Ombudsman, which dismissed the
    charges of falsification of public documents and violation of the Anti-Graft
    and Corrupt Practices Act.

    Ruling:
    No. The Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to review the
    resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman dismissing the charges. The
    jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals is limited only to orders, directives, and
    decisions issued by the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative
    disciplinary cases, precluding it from examining such rulings in criminal or
    non-administrative cases.

    Kuizon v. Desierto underscored the correctness of the appellate court's


    limitation to administrative cases, clarifying that appeals from the
    Ombudsman's decisions in administrative disciplinary matters must be
    pursued under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

    The Court's declaration of Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 as


    unconstitutional was specific to appeals by certiorari under Rule 45 in
    administrative disciplinary actions, excluding its application to original
    actions for certiorari under Rule 65, particularly in criminal cases.

    You might also like