Kuizon vs Desierto

FACTS
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by
incumbent Municipal Mayor of Bato, Leyte, Benedicto E. Kuizon, Joselito Raniero J.
Daan and Rosalina T. Tolibas to set aside the approval by the respondent
Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto of the recommending the prosecution of herein
petitioners.
The cases subject of this petition emanated from a complain ] filed on
December 8, 1995 by one Melanio Saporas with the Office of the OmbudsmanVisayas (OMB-Visayas) against petitioner Benedicto Kuizon for Nepotism and
Malversation Thru Falsification of Public Documents in connection with the forging of
signatures of some casual laborers of Bato, Leyte in the payroll slips of the
municipality and the drawing of their salaries on different dates.
The Sandiganbayan set the criminal cases for hearing on August 16, 18 to 20,
1999. On September 6, 1999, petitioners filed a petition before the Court of Appeals
assailing the approval by the respondent Aniano A. Desierto of the Memorandum of
his Legal Counsel which recommended the continued prosecution of the petitioners.
The Court of Appeals promulgated a Resolution ] which DISMISSED the petition
for lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE
Whether the CA has jurisdiction on cases coming from the Ombudsman with regards
to criminal cases.

HELD
CA has no jurisdiction. SC explained that appeals from decisions of the Office of the
Ombudsman in administrative cases should be appealed to the Court of Appeals
under Rule 43. If what is assailed is an incident in a criminal case, the proper
remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which should be filed with the
Supreme Court. This was reiterated in other case wherein the SC 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 with the SC under Rule
65.