Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Yatco Vs Deputy Ombudsman (2020)

    Uploaded by

    Don Quixotic
    196 views11 pages
    Ruling of Ombudsman in criminal cases can be assailed under Rule 65 only before the SC

    Original Title

    Yatco vs Deputy Ombudsman [2020]

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Ruling of Ombudsman in criminal cases can be assailed under Rule 65 only before the SC

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    196 views11 pages

    Yatco Vs Deputy Ombudsman (2020)

    Uploaded by

    Don Quixotic
    Ruling of Ombudsman in criminal cases can be assailed under Rule 65 only before the SC

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 11
    Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila SECOND DIVISION ADELAIDA YATCO, GR.No, 244775 Petitioner, versus ~ Present PERLAS-BERNABE, $.4./, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY Chairperson, OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, HERNANDO, MARLYN “LEN” BELIZARIO.—_INTING, ALONTE-NAGUIT, WALFREDO — DELOS SANTOS, and REYES DIMAGUILA, JR, GAERLAN, "UL VIRGILIO M. DIMARANAN, AND ANGELITO ALONALON, spondents. Prom Respond Promulgated: - DECISION PERLAS-BERNABE, Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari! is the Resolution? dated February 7, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR. SP No, 156633, which partly dismissed the petition for certiorari before iton the ‘ground that the CA has no jurisdiction over the eriminal aspect ofthe cases ‘coming from the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman), ej tina oS re. ied Ma 2020 Ma By my Asi se Vii ln wit Ati ss Mee Decision 2 GR No. 24775, ‘The Facts In 2016, petitioner Adelaida Yatco (petitioner) filed a complaint with the Ombudsman against four (4) officials of Bitan, Laguna Particularly: then Mayor Marlyn B. Alonte-Naguit (Alonte-Naguit) then Vice Mayor Walftedo R. Dimaguila, J. (Dimaguila), Municipal Accountant Virgilio M, Dimaranan, and Municipal Treasurer Angelito Alonalon (respondents, for violations of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, RA 6713, Plunder, Grave Misconduct, Conduet Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and Dishonesty, in relation to the purchase ofa propety for the expansion of the municipal cemetery. Petitioner alleged, among others, that the purchase was. disadvantageous to the government and. tha respondent Alonte-Naguit had financial interest in the transaction. 4 a Joint Resolution’ dated August 17, 2017 (Joint Resolution), the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause and lack of substantial evidence. It held, among others, that Alonte-Naguit had no Airect or indirect financial interest in the subject transaction because the Portion purchased by the municipality did not include the portion of the «state owned by her mother and that the purchase price was not grossly and ‘manifestly disidvantageous to the government since it reflected the fair ‘market value of similar properties in the vicinity.* Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was, however, denied in ‘Joint Order’ dated April 10, 2018 (Joint Order). She then filed a petit for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA. assailing the entirety of the Ombudsman’s ruling. She explained that since the Ombudsman “consolidated the decision for both the criminal and the administrative" aspects of the ease, she fled the petition before the CA, as a whole.” Respondent Dimaguila fled a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In tum, petitioner opposed the motion to dismiss, la 24-40 Sind by Gra eign ad Prin Of Rea Anan Navan snapped by Onbesman Conn Cp Mrs Ae eas aed atmo Sein Mt) FAA, he Otel at ponte, Alma aa be td ave dew mre anal rot De ee Cee ii paige mcrae ena a Senin panna hyn ta ot Sinner lae exehs tas pene ed ke Sette + idaie ettancton. (Seed 330, Decision 3 GR No, 775 Citing Cortes v. Office of the Ombudsman (Cortes) she argued that “in cases involving consolidation of administrative and criminal complains, the aggrieved party has the option to either file a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court (Rule 43) with the [CA] or directly fle « petition for certiorari under Rule 65 ofthe Rules of Court (Rule 68) before the Supreme Court."* ‘The CA’s Ruling In & Resolution” dated February 7, 2019, the CA dismissed the Petition for certiorari “as regards the criminal aspect of the case.” It hheld that it has jurisdiction over decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative diseiplinary cases only, and accordingly, it cannot review. ‘he Ombudsman’s ‘decisions. in criminal or non-administative cases Further, itruled that petitioner misconstrued the ruling in Cortes, because it id not contain a categorical pronouncement that an aggrieved party has temative remedies* in case of a consolidated decision’ by. the ‘Ombudsman resolving administrative and criminal complaints." Infact in ‘one case, ”! the Court held that the CA exceeded its jurisdiction when the latter touched on the criminal aspect of the Ombudsman’s decision, "= Hence, this petition ‘The Issue Before the Court The issue before the Court is whether or not the CA. cortstly

    You might also like