Salvador v.

Mapa 539 SCRA 34 [2000] Kaye

FACTS: A sworn complaint for violation of Sections 3(e) and (g) of Republic Act No 3!"#$ or t%e Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act was filed against t%e respondents &apa$ 'r et al T%e (mbudsman dismissed t%e complaint on
t%e ground of prescription
)SS*+: Whether or not the present petton !or reve" on #ertorar sho$ld %e ds&ssed !or %en' the
"ron' re&edy n elevatn' the #ase to the SC.
R*,)N-: No A petition for review on certiorari under Rule ./ is not t%e proper mode b0 w%ic% resolutions of t%e
(mbudsman in preliminar0 investigations of criminal cases are reviewed b0 t%e SC T%e remed0 from t%e adverse
resolution of t%e (mbudsman is a petition for certiorari under Rule 1/ 2owever$ t%oug% captioned as a Petition for
Review on Certiorari$ t%e SC treated t%e petition as one filed under Rule 1/ since a reading of its contents reveals
t%at petioner imputes grave abuse of discretion to t%e (mbudsman for dismissing t%e complaint T%e averments in
t%e complaint$ not t%e nomenclature given b0 t%e parties$ determine t%e nature of t%e action