Kuizon vs. Desierto

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman in a criminal case must be filed with the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals having jurisdiction only over appeals in administrative disciplinary cases.

Melanio Saporas filed complaints with the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas against Bato, Leyte Mayor Benedicto Kuizon, Timekeeper Joselito Daan, and Paymaster Rosalina Tolibas for malversation through falsification of public documents. The complaints alleged that the signatures of terminated casual laborers were forged on municipal payrolls and their salaries misappropriated by the accused. Graft Investigation Officers recommended prosecution, finding probable cause based on the specific denial of the questioned signatures by complainant's witnesses and the striking dissimilarity between the signatures in the payrolls and the witnesses' affidavits.

• The Complaints: Melanio Saporas filed two sets of complaints with the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas against petitioners for nepotism and malversation through falsification. The allegations centered on the forgery of signatures of terminated casual laborers on municipal payrolls and the subsequent collection of their salaries by the accused.
• OMB-Visayas Resolutions: Graft Investigation Officer I Samuel Malazarte found probable cause, noting that complainant's witnesses specifically denied the questioned signatures and petitioners failed to present expert evidence to disprove the forgery, relying instead on potentially coerced co-workers. Graft Investigation Officer I Venerando Santiago similarly found probable cause in a related complaint, observing a striking dissimilarity between the signatures in the affidavits of complainant's witnesses and those in the payrolls.
• Reinvestigation and Ombudsman Action: After informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan, petitioners sought reinvestigation. Special Prosecution Officer II Lemuel De Guzman recommended excluding Mayor Kuizon and remanding the case against Daan and Tolibas to the regular court. The Ombudsman referred the matter to the Office of the Chief Legal Counsel (OCLC), which recommended continuing the prosecution of all accused. The Ombudsman approved the OCLC recommendation.
• Arraignment and Subsequent Petitions: The Sandiganbayan denied petitioners' motions to defer arraignment. Petitioners were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Petitioners initially filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction, citing Fabian v. Desierto. Petitioners then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

• Denial of Due Process: Petitioners contended they were deprived of the opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration because they were not furnished copies of the adverse resolutions prior to approval by the Ombudsman, violating Sections 6 and 7 of Administrative Order No. 07.
• Lack of Reinvestigation: Petitioners Daan and Tolibas argued that grave abuse of discretion was committed when the Ombudsman approved the prosecution without conducting a reinvestigation as to them, considering only Kuizon's counter-affidavit.
• Improper Reversal by Ombudsman: Petitioner Kuizon maintained that the Ombudsman gravely abused his discretion in approving the OCLC memorandum reinstating the prosecution against him, despite the Special Prosecutor's recommendation to drop the charges.
• Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals: Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals has concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court over Rule 65 petitions questioning Ombudsman resolutions in criminal cases, applying the doctrine in St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC.

• Timeliness: Respondent argued the petition was filed out of time, the 60-day period having lapsed from the denial of the motion to defer arraignment, and the erroneous filing with the Court of Appeals did not toll the period.
• Procedural Compliance: Respondent countered that under Office procedure, resolutions involving high-ranking officials require Ombudsman approval before release; copies of the approved resolutions were sent to the parties by registered mail.
• Waiver: Respondent asserted that any procedural defects in the preliminary investigation were waived when petitioners pleaded not guilty during arraignment.
• Ombudsman's Prerogative: Respondent argued that the Ombudsman's approval of the OCLC recommendation over the Special Prosecutor's was a valid exercise of supervision and control, not grave abuse of discretion.

• Jurisdiction: Whether the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman in a criminal case.
• Timeliness: Whether the erroneous filing of the petition with the Court of Appeals tolled the 60-day reglementary period to file a petition for certiorari.
• Due Process: Whether the failure to furnish petitioners copies of the adverse resolutions prior to the Ombudsman's approval constitutes a denial of due process that invalidates the subsequent informations.
• Waiver of Preliminary Investigation: Whether the failure to conduct a reinvestigation as to some petitioners affects the validity of the information or the jurisdiction of the court.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in approving the recommendation of the Office of the Chief Legal Counsel over that of the Special Prosecutor.

• Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over Rule 65 petitions assailing Ombudsman resolutions in criminal cases. Fabian v. Desierto limited Court of Appeals jurisdiction to appeals in administrative disciplinary cases; original actions for certiorari incident to criminal actions must be filed with the Supreme Court.
• Timeliness: The erroneous filing with the Court of Appeals did not toll the 60-day prescriptive period. The petition was filed out of time.
• Due Process: Non-compliance with the notice requirement under Section 6 of Administrative Order No. 07 does not affect the validity of the information filed. The right to file a motion for reconsideration is not lost, as it may be filed and acted upon by the Ombudsman if directed by the court where the information was filed. Petitioners were not deprived of due process as they were able to file pleadings and a motion for reinvestigation.
• Waiver of Preliminary Investigation: Any irregularity in the preliminary investigation or reinvestigation was waived when petitioners entered a plea of not guilty. The invalidity or absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the information or the jurisdiction of the court.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No grave abuse of discretion was committed. The Ombudsman merely reviewed and affirmed the findings of the investigating prosecutor. In case of conflict between the Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor, the former's decision prevails, the Office of the Special Prosecutor being under the supervision and control of the Ombudsman. The Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause absent grave abuse of discretion.

• Jurisdiction over Ombudsman Criminal Resolutions — Petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 questioning the resolutions or orders of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal cases must be filed with the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals exercises jurisdiction only over decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases.
• Waiver of Preliminary Investigation — When an accused pleads to the charge, the right to preliminary investigation and the right to question any irregularity surrounding it are deemed waived. The invalidity or absence of a preliminary investigation does not affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case or impair the validity of the information.
• Effect of Non-Compliance with Administrative Order No. 07, Section 6 — The failure to furnish a respondent with a copy of an adverse resolution prior to the filing of information does not invalidate the information. A motion for reconsideration may still be filed and acted upon by the Ombudsman if directed by the court where the information was filed.
• Ombudsman's Supervision and Control over the Office of the Special Prosecutor — In case of conflict between the conclusions of the Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor, the former's decision prevails. The Ombudsman's adoption of a subordinate's recommendation over another's does not per se constitute grave abuse of discretion.

• "It bears stressing that when we declared Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 as unconstitutional, we categorically stated that said provision is involved only whenever an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 is taken from a decision in an administrative disciplinary action. It cannot be taken into account where an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 is resorted to as a remedy for judicial review, such as from an incident in a criminal action."
• "The issue is not of momentous legal significance for non-compliance with Sections 6 and 7 of Administrative Order No. 7 does not affect the validity of the Informations filed with the Sandiganbayan."
• "The settled rule is that when an accused pleads to the charge, he is deemed to have waived the right to preliminary investigation and the right to question any irregularity that surrounds it."
• "In case of conflict in the conclusions of the Ombudsman and the special prosecutor, it is self-evident that the former's decision shall prevail since the Office of the Special Prosecutor is under the supervision and control of the Ombudsman."

• Fabian v. Desierto, 295 SCRA 470 (1998) — Followed. Established that appeals from Ombudsman decisions in administrative disciplinary cases go to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, but original actions for certiorari in criminal cases must be filed with the Supreme Court.
• Pecho v. Sandiganbayan, 238 SCRA 116 (1994) — Followed. Held that failure to furnish a copy of an adverse resolution under Section 6 of Administrative Order No. 07 does not invalidate the information, and a motion for reconsideration may still be filed in court.
• Cruz, Jr. v. People, 233 SCRA 439 (1994) — Followed. Held that the Ombudsman's adoption of an investigating prosecutor's findings is merely a review and does not constitute grave abuse of discretion.
• Ocampo, IV v. Ombudsman, 225 SCRA 725 (1993) — Followed. Articulated the rationale for non-interference with the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause absent grave abuse of discretion.
• St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, 295 SCRA 494 (1998) — Distinguished. Petitioners erroneously invoked this case to argue for Court of Appeals jurisdiction over criminal cases.

• Section 27, Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) — Declared unconstitutional insofar as it provides for an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court in administrative disciplinary cases; inapplicable to original actions for certiorari in criminal cases.
• Section 4, Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Requires a petition for certiorari to be filed not later than 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution.
• Sections 6 and 7, Rule II, Administrative Order No. 07 (Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman) — Section 6 requires parties to be served with a copy of the resolution as finally approved; Section 7 allows one motion for reconsideration within five days from notice. Non-compliance does not invalidate the information.
• Section 4(g), Rule II, Administrative Order No. 07 — Provides that no information may be filed and no complaint dismissed without the written authority or approval of the Ombudsman in cases falling within the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction.
• Section 11(4)(a), Republic Act No. 6770 — Places the Office of the Special Prosecutor under the supervision and control of the Ombudsman.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Kapunan, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ.