Ciron Vs Guttierez PDF

11/26/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 756
G.R. Nos. 19433941. April 20, 2015.*

TERESITA A. CIRON, petitioner, vs. MA. MERCEDITAS
N. GUTIERREZ, in her official capacity as Ombudsman,
FLORIZA A. BRIONES and TERESITA P. BUTARDO
TACATA, in their official capacities as Graft Investigation
& Prosecution Officer II of the Office of the Ombudsman,
NONNA O. BELTRAN, 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor,
RAUL E. CONTRERAS, City Prosecutor, both of National
Prosecution Office, Iriga City, and SANTIAGO D.
ORTEGA, JR., respondents.
Ombudsman; Doctrine of Noninterference; The Supreme Court

(SC) has consistently refrained from interfering with the discretion
of the Ombudsman to determine the existence of probable cause
and to decide whether an Information should be filed. In this
relation, it is settled that the Ombudsman has the full discretion to
determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed.At the
outset, it must be stressed that the Court has consistently
refrained from interfering with the discretion of the Ombudsman
to determine the existence of probable cause and to decide
whether an Information should be filed. In this relation, it is
settled that the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine
whether or not a criminal case should be filed. Nonetheless, this
Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsmans action
when there is a charge of grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse
of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The Ombudsmans
exercise of power must have been done in an arbitrary or despotic
manner which must be so patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty
enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
Criminal Law; AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act; The
essential elements of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA)
No. 3019 are as follows: (a) that the accused must be a public
officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions
(or a pri
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000158a03a0c473f86b7c3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
111
VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 111

Ciron vs. Gutierrez
vate individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers);

(b) that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or
inexcusable negligence; and (c) that his action caused any undue
injury to any party, including the government, or giving any
private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in
the discharge of his functions.As already stated, respondents
were accused of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019 for issuing the
Supplemental Resolutions without Ortega filing a new complaint
before the OCPIriga. The essential elements of such crime are as
follows: (a) that the accused must be a public officer discharging
administrative, judicial, or official functions (or a private
individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers); (b) that
he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or
inexcusable negligence; and (c) that his action caused any undue
injury to any party, including the government, or giving any
private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in
the discharge of his functions.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Dismissal of Actions; An
order dismissing a case without prejudice can attain finality if no
motion for reconsideration or appeal therefrom is timely filed and
that, in such case, the proper remedy to revive the case is not to file
a motion as the court already lost its power to amend or modify its
order.In Baares II v. Balising, 328 SCRA 36 (2000), the private
prosecutor attempted to reinstate the criminal cases which had
been dismissed without prejudice by mere motion more than two
(2) months after it had notice of the order of dismissal, without a
motion for reconsideration or an appeal having been filed. The
Court explained that an order dismissing a case without prejudice
can attain finality if no motion for reconsideration or appeal
therefrom is timely filed and that, in such case, the proper remedy
to revive the case is not to file a motion as the court already lost
its power to amend or modify its order.
Same; Criminal Procedure; Revival of Actions; Actions;
Information; Complaint for purposes of reviving a case must then
refer to Informations where what is involved is a criminal case.
The Court is not oblivious to the fact that Baares II, where
criminal cases were involved, uses the phrase file a new
complaint. It must be clarified, however, that Baares II and
Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco, 234 SCRA
455 (1994), merely state the rule that when an order dismissing a
case without prejudice has attained
112
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ciron vs. Gutierrez
finality, the case may no longer be revived by mere motion as

it is no longer within the courts power to modify or amend;
instead, the action must be instituted anew. Baares II and
Ortigas did not require a new complaint for preliminary
investigation in order to revive a criminal case. In this regard, it
must be emphasized that complaint in civil cases is different
from a complaint in criminal cases. In civil cases, the complaint
is the initiatory pleading filed in court, whereas in criminal cases,
what is filed in court is an Information and not a complaint,
which is filed before the public prosecutor for purposes of
conducting a preliminary investigation. Thus, complaint for
purposes of reviving a case must then refer to Informations where
what is involved is a criminal case.
Same; Same; The Supreme Court (SC) has, in several cases,
held that criminal cases which have been dismissed without
prejudice may be reinstated by motion before the order of dismissal
becomes final, or thereafter, by filing a new Information for the
offense.Verily, the Court has, in several cases, held that
criminal cases which have been dismissed without prejudice may
be reinstated by motion before the order of dismissal becomes
final, or thereafter, by filing a new Information for the offense.
The Court, therefore, disagrees with Cirons view that a new
complaint for preliminary investigation had to be filed before the
charges against her could be revived.
Same; Same; Preliminary Investigation; Instances When a
New Preliminary Investigation Must be Conducted to Accord the
Accused the Right to Submit Counteraffidavits and Evidence.
Anent the argument that a new preliminary investigation must
be conducted, it is settled that the same is only required in order
to accord the accused the right to submit counteraffidavits and
evidence only in the following instances: (a) where the original
witnesses of the prosecution or some of them may have recanted
their testimonies or may have died or may no longer be available
and new witnesses for the State have emerged; (b) where aside
from the original accused, other persons are charged under a new
criminal complaint for the same offense or necessarily included
therein; (c) if under a new criminal complaint, the original charge
has been upgraded; or (d) if under a new criminal complaint, the
criminal liability of the accused is upgraded from being an
accessory to that of a principal. Since none of the foregoing
instances obtain in this case, the Court holds that
113
VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 113

Ciron vs. Gutierrez
the OCPIriga, through Beltran and Contreras, need not

conduct another preliminary investigation before it can issue the
Supplemental Resolutions and subsequently, file the consequent
Informations in court.
Same; Same; Same; Doctrine of Noninterference; Courts
cannot interfere with the Ombudsmans discretion in the conduct
of preliminary investigations and in the determination of probable
cause where the Ombudsmans discretion prevails over judicial
discretion except when there is grave abuse of discretion, which
does not obtain in this case.The Court emphasizes that in our
criminal justice system, the public prosecutor, which is the Office
of the Ombudsman in this case, exercises wide latitude of
discretion in determining whether a criminal case should be filed
in court. Courts cannot interfere with the Ombudsmans
discretion in the conduct of preliminary investigations and in the
determination of probable cause where the Ombudsmans
discretion prevails over judicial discretion except when there is
grave abuse of discretion, which does not obtain in this case.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
G.P. Angeles & Associates Law Office for petitioner.

PERLASBERNABE, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for certiorari1 assailing the
Joint Resolution2 dated February 16, 2009 and the Joint
Order3 dated June 1, 2010 of the Office of the Ombudsman
(Ombudsman) in OMBLC080527G, OMBLC080662
H, and OMBLC080663H, which dismissed petitioner
Teresita A. Cirons (Ciron) complaint charging respondents
Nonna O. Beltran (Beltran), Raul E. Contreras (Contreras)
and Santi
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 318.

2 Id., at pp. 2133. Penned by Graft Investigation & Prosecution
Officer II Floriza A. Briones, with Acting Director Rolando B. Zoleta,
concurring.
3 Id., at pp. 3540.
114

Ciron vs. Gutierrez
ago D. Ortega, Jr. (Ortega, Jr.) of violating Section 3(e)4

of Republic Act No. (RA) 30195 for lack of probable cause.

The Facts

Pursuant to the criminal complaints filed by Ortega, Jr.,
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Iriga City (OCPIriga)
found probable cause to indict Ciron, then Credit and
Collection Officer of the University of Saint Anthony
(USANT), of two (2) counts of estafa in connection with the
latters failure to remit the following amounts: (a)
P239,542.22 representing deductions made from the
salaries of the employees of USANT in payment of various
accounts (I.S. Case No. 2004093);6 and (b) P2,656,117.37
representing tuition and other fees collected from the
USANT students in the school year 20012002 (I.S. Case
No. 2004094).7 Consequently, Informations therefor were
filed before the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Branch
36 (RTC), respectively docketed as Criminal Case Nos. IR
6760 and IR6759.8
_______________
4 SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.In addition to acts or

omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the
following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are
hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxxx
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the
Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or
judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and
employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of
licenses or permits or other concessions.
xxxx
5 Entitled AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act (August 17, 1960).
6 See Resolution dated May 3, 2004 penned by 3rd Assistant City
Prosecutor Dorotea Amparo C. Cruz; Rollo, pp. 9295.
7 See Resolution dated May 4, 2004; id., at pp. 9699.
8 Id., at p. 25.
115
VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 115

Ciron vs. Gutierrez
Subsequently, Ciron filed the following motions: (a)

motion for a bill of particulars alleging that both
Informations were deficient because they simply state that
the estafa was committed during the period from June,
2001 to May 31, 2002 without specifying when she
received the money;9 and (b) supplement motion for
reinvestigation.10 On January 17, 200511 and January 27,
2005,12 the RTC issued Orders directing the prosecution to
amend said Informations and state therein the particulars
sought for by Ciron, as well as to conduct reinvestigation of
the charges against her.13 This notwithstanding, the OCP
Iriga issued two (2) Resolutions14 both dated June 30, 2006
holding that there is no cogent reason to alter, modify, or
reconsider its earlier resolutions finding probable cause
against Ciron for estafa and, accordingly, ordered the
elevation of the case back to the RTC.15
Due to the OCPIrigas insistence of the sufficiency of its
Informations, the RTC issued an Order16 dated August 9,
2006 (August 9, 2006 Order) dismissing both Criminal
Case Nos. IR6760 and IR6759 without prejudice to their
refiling.17 Such Order attained finality on September 2,
2006.18
In view of the dismissals without prejudice of the
aforesaid criminal cases, the OCPIriga reviewed the
evidence on hand pertaining to I.S. Case Nos. 2004093 and
2004094 resulting in its issuance of two (2) Supplemental
Resolutions dated
_______________
9 Id., at p. 68.
10 Id., at p. 70.
11 Id., at pp. 6869. Penned by Judge Milagros G. Quijano.
12 Id., at p. 70.
13 Id., at pp. 6970.
14 Id., at pp. 102105. Penned by 1st Assistant City Prosecutor
Mariano H. Canuto.
15 Id., at pp. 103104.
16 Id., at pp. 106107.
17 Id., at p. 107.
18 See Entry of Final Judgment dated September 26, 2006; id., at p.
75.
116

Ciron vs. Gutierrez
March 28, 200819 and June 10, 2008,20 which were

penned by Beltran in her capacity as 2nd Assistant City
Prosecutor and approved by Contreras as City
Prosecutor.21 In these Supplemental Resolutions, the OCP
Iriga recommended the filing of a total of 21 Informations
for estafa against Ciron, broken down as follows: (a) as
regards I.S. Case No. 2004093, Ciron accumulated the
amount of P239,542.22 in twelve (12) separate instances
and, thus, the filing of the same number of Informations is
in order;22 and (b) as regards I.S. Case No. 2004094, Ciron
was able to obtain the aggregate sum of P2,656,117.37 on
nine (9) occasions, necessitating the filing of the same
number of Informations before the RTC.23
Aggrieved by the actions of the OCPIriga, Ciron filed a
ComplaintAffidavit24 dated July 14, 2008 against Beltran,
Contreras, and Ortega, Jr. before the Ombudsman,
accusing them of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019. In her
complaint, Ciron contended that since the August 9, 2006
Order had already attained finality, the OCPIriga could no
longer revive nor reinstate the estafa charges against her
without Ortega, Jr. filing a new complaint before it.25 Thus,
Ciron concludes that Beltran and Contreras acts of issuing
the Supplemental Resolutions and filing the Informations
for estafa before the RTC were made with manifest
partiality, evident bad faith, or gross negligence and gave
unwarranted preference to Ortega, Jr., to her prejudice
since she had to post bail to secure her temporary liberty.26
_______________
19 Id., at pp. 108110.

20 Id., at pp. 111112.
21 Id., at pp. 110 and 112.
22 Id., at pp. 108110.
23 Id., at pp. 111112.
24 Id., at pp. 4954.
25 Id., at p. 53.
26 Id., at pp. 5354.
117
VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 117
Ciron vs. Gutierrez
In her counteraffidavit,27 Beltran denied the charges

against her and maintained that she issued the
Supplemental Resolutions after reviewing all the
evidence.28 She argued that the August 9, 2006 Order was
without prejudice and, as such, the OCPIriga still had the
authority to issue new resolutions and to file new
Informations even without the filing of a new complaint.29
Also, she pointed out that Ciron failed to exhaust the
administrative remedies available to her by filing a motion
for reconsideration of the OCPIriga Supplemental
Resolutions and/or elevating the case to the Department of
Justice (DOJ) via petition for review.30
For his part,31 Ortega, Jr. denied conspiring with
Beltran and Contreras. He emphasized that Cirons
predicament was her own doing when her motion for bill of
particulars resulted in the filing of multiple cases against
her.32 Contreras, on the other hand, did not submit his
counteraffidavit.33

The Ombudsmans Ruling

In a Joint Resolution34 dated February 16, 2009, the
Ombudsman found no probable cause to indict Beltran,
Contreras, and Ortega, Jr. of the violations charged, and
accordingly, dismissed the complaint against them. It did
not find any showing of manifest partiality, evident bad
faith, or gross inexcusable negligence on the part of Beltran
and Contreras when they issued the Supplemental
Resolutions, as they were made after a circumspect review
of the records, as well as the voluminous evidence
submitted by Ortega during the pre
_______________
27 Id., at pp. 8591.

28 Id., at pp. 8687.
29 Id., at p. 87.
30 Id., at p. 89.
31 See CounterAffidavit dated October 16, 2008; id., at pp. 8184.
32 Id., at pp. 8384.
33 Id., at p. 24.
34 Id., at pp. 2133.
118
Ciron vs. Gutierrez
liminary investigation. The Ombudsman likewise agreed

with respondents that Ciron should have sought
reconsideration of the Supplemental Resolutions or a
review thereof before the DOJ instead of filing her
complaint before it.35
Dissatisfied, Ciron moved for reconsideration,36 which
was, however, denied in a Joint Order37 dated June 1,
2010, hence, this petition.

The Issue Before the Court

The issue raised for the Courts resolution is whether or
not the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in
finding no probable cause to indict respondents of violating
Section 3(e) of RA 3019.

The Courts Ruling

The petition is without merit.
At the outset, it must be stressed that the Court has
consistently refrained from interfering with the discretion
of the Ombudsman to determine the existence of probable
cause and to decide whether an Information should be filed.
In this relation, it is settled that the Ombudsman has the
full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case
should be filed. Nonetheless, this Court is not precluded
from reviewing the Ombudsmans action when there is a
charge of grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of
discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The
Ombudsmans exercise of power must have been done in an
arbitrary or despotic manner which must be so patent and
gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a
virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at
_______________
35 Id., at pp. 2932.

36 Dated May 14, 2010. Id., at pp. 4147.
37 Id., at pp. 3540.
119
VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 119

Ciron vs. Gutierrez
all in contemplation of law.38

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000158a03a0c473f86b7c3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False The Courts 9/15
all in contemplation of law.38 The Courts

pronouncement in Tetangco v. Ombudsman39 is instructive
regarding this matter, to wit:

xxx this Courts consistent policy has been to maintain

noninterference in the determination of the Ombudsman
of the existence of probable cause, provided there is no
grave abuse in the exercise of such discretion. This
observed policy is based not only on respect for the
investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the
Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon
practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the Court will
be seriously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the
dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of
the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, in much
the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped with
cases if they could be compelled to review the exercise of
discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each
time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a
complaint by a private complainant.40 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

Guided by the foregoing considerations, the Court finds
that the Ombudsman did not gravely abuse its discretion in
dismissing the complaints against respondent for lack of
probable cause.
As already stated, respondents were accused of violating
Section 3(e) of RA 3019 for issuing the Supplemental
Resolutions without Ortega filing a new complaint before
the OCP
_______________
38 Soriano v. Marcelo, 610 Phil. 72, 79; 592 SCRA 394, 402403 (2009),
citing PCGG v. Desierto, 563 Phil. 517, 525526; 496 SCRA 112, 121
(2007).
39 515 Phil. 230; 479 SCRA 249 (2006).
40 Id., at pp. 234235; pp. 253254, citing Roxas v. Vasquez, 411 Phil.
276, 288; 358 SCRA 636, 646 (2001).
120

Ciron vs. Gutierrez
Iriga. The essential elements of such crime are as

follows: (a) that the accused must be a public officer
discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions (or
a private individual acting in conspiracy with such public
officers);41 (b) that he acted with manifest partiality,
evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (c) that
his action caused any undue injury to any party, including
the government, or giving any private party unwarranted
benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his
functions.42
As will be explained hereunder, the Ombudsman
correctly found that Beltran and Contreras acts of issuing
the Supplemental Resolutions and filing of new
Informations before the RTC, even without Ortega, Jr.
filing a new complaint before the OCPIriga, is in
accordance with prevailing rules and jurisprudence and,
thus, were not tainted with manifest partiality, evident bad
faith, or inexcusable negligence.
Ciron posits that the August 9, 2006 Order dismissing
the cases against her without prejudice had already
attained finality and, as such, Beltran and Contreras
should have required Ortega to file a new complaint before
the OCPIriga for preliminary investigation before reviving
the charges against her. In support of her argument, Ciron
cites Baares II v. Balising43 (Baares II) where it was held
that [a]fter the order of dismissal of a case without
prejudice has become final, and therefore becomes outside
the courts power to amend and modify, a party wishes to
reinstate the case has no other remedy but to file a new
complaint.44
Her reliance on Baares II is misplaced.
_______________
41 See People v. Balao, 655 Phil. 563, 572; 640 SCRA 565, 574 (2011),
citing Dela Chica v. Sandiganbayan, 462 Phil. 712, 720; 417 SCRA 242,
247 (2003).
42 See Consigna v. People, G.R. Nos. 17575051, April 2, 2014, 720
SCRA 350, citing Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan, 484 Phil. 350, 360; 441
SCRA 377, 386 (2004).
43 384 Phil. 567; 328 SCRA 36 (2000).
44 Id., at p. 578; p. 46.
121
VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 121

Ciron vs. Gutierrez
In Baares II, the private prosecutor attempted to

reinstate the criminal cases which had been dismissed
without prejudice by mere motion more than two (2)
months after it had notice of the order of dismissal, without
a motion for reconsideration or an appeal having been filed.
The Court explained that an order dismissing a case
without prejudice can attain finality if no motion for
reconsideration or appeal therefrom is timely filed and
that, in such case, the proper remedy to revive the case is
not to file a motion as the court already lost its power to
amend or modify its order, viz.:
This Court has previously held that an order dismissing a case

without prejudice is a final order if no motion for reconsideration
or appeal therefrom is timely filed.
xxxx
After the lapse of the fifteenday period, an order becomes final
and executory and is beyond the power or jurisdiction of the court
which rendered it to further amend or revoke. A final judgment or
order cannot be modified in any respect, even if the modification
sought is for the purpose of correcting an erroneous conclusion by
the court which rendered the same.
After the order of dismissal of a case without prejudice
has become final, and therefore becomes outside the
courts power to amend and modify, a party wishes to
reinstate the case has no other remedy but to file a new
complaint.45 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco46
(Ortigas), a civil case which was cited in Baares II, the
Court explained the nature of dismissals without prejudice:
The dismissal of the case, and the lapse of the reglementary

period to reconsider or set aside the dis
_______________
45 Id., at pp. 577578; p. 46.

46 G.R. Nos. 109645 and 112564, July 25, 1994, 234 SCRA 455.
122

Ciron vs. Gutierrez
missal, effectively operated to remove the case from the Courts

docket. Even assuming the dismissal to be without
prejudice, the case could no longer be reinstated or
revived by mere motion in the original docketed action,

but only by the filing of another complaint accompanied,
of course, by the payment of the corresponding filing fees
prescribed by law. x x x.47 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)

The Court is not oblivious to the fact that Baares II,
where criminal cases were involved, uses the phrase file a
new complaint. It must be clarified, however, that Baares
II and Ortigas merely state the rule that when an order
dismissing a case without prejudice has attained finality,
the case may no longer be revived by mere motion as it is
no longer within the courts power to modify or amend;
instead, the action must be instituted anew. Baares II and
Ortigas did not require a new complaint for preliminary
investigation in order to revive a criminal case. In this
regard, it must be emphasized that complaint in civil
cases is different from a complaint in criminal cases. In
civil cases, the complaint is the initiatory pleading filed in
court,48 whereas in criminal cases, what is filed in court is
an Information and not a complaint, which is filed before
the public prosecutor for purposes of conducting a
preliminary investigation. Thus, complaint for purposes
of reviving a case must then refer to Informations where
what is involved is a criminal case.
Verily, the Court has, in several cases, held that
criminal cases which have been dismissed without
prejudice may be reinstated by motion before the order of
dismissal becomes final, or thereafter, by filing a new
Information for the offense.49 The Court, therefore,
disagrees with Cirons view that
_______________
47 Id., at p. 486.
48 See Section 3, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court.
49 See Jaca v. Blanco, 86 Phil. 452, 453455 (1950). See also Condrada
v. People, 446 Phil. 635, 637642; 398 SCRA 482, 485
123
VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 123

Ciron vs. Gutierrez
a new complaint for preliminary investigation had to be

filed before the charges against her could be revived.
Anent the argument that a new preliminary

investigation must be conducted, it is settled that the same
is only required in order to accord the accused the right to
submit counteraffidavits and evidence only in the
following instances: (a) where the original witnesses of the
prosecution or some of them may have recanted their
testimonies or may have died or may no longer be available
and new witnesses for the State have emerged; (b) where
aside from the original accused, other persons are charged
under a new criminal complaint for the same offense or
necessarily included therein; (c) if under a new criminal
complaint, the original charge has been upgraded; or (d) if
under a new criminal complaint, the criminal liability of
the accused is upgraded from being an accessory to that of
a principal.50 Since none of the foregoing instances obtain
in this case, the Court holds that the OCPIriga, through
Beltran and Contreras, need not conduct another
preliminary investigation before it can issue the
Supplemental Resolutions and subsequently, file the
consequent Informations in court.
In sum, the Ombudsman did not gravely abuse its
discretion in dismissing the complaint against respondents
since the issuance of the Supplemental Resolutions and the
filing of the new Informations against Ciron even without a
new complaint having been filed for preliminary
investigation were done in accordance with prevailing rules
and jurisprudence.
On a final note, the Court emphasizes that in our
criminal justice system, the public prosecutor, which is the
Office of the Ombudsman in this case, exercises wide
latitude of discretion in determining whether a criminal
case should be filed
_______________
(2003) and People v. Lacson, 448 Phil. 317, 372373; 400 SCRA 267,
329 (2003).
50 See People v. Lacson, id.
124

Ciron vs. Gutierrez
in court.51 Courts cannot interfere with the

Ombudsmans discretion in the conduct of preliminary
investigations and in the determination of probable cause
where the Ombudsmans discretion prevails over judicial
discretion except when there is grave abuse
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000158a03a0c473f86b7c3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False of discretion,52 14/15
discretion except when there is grave abuse of discretion,52

which does not obtain in this case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The Joint
Resolution dated February 16, 2009 and the Joint Order
dated June 1, 2010 of the Office of the Ombudsman in
OMBLC080527G, OMBLC080662H, and OMBLC
080663H are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), LeonardoDe Castro,

Bersamin and Perez, JJ., concur.
Petition dismissed, Joint Resolution and Joint Order

affirmed.
Notes.The conduct of preliminary investigation by

respondent judge was in direct contravention of A.M. No.
05826SC, which took effect on 3 October 2005, amending
Rules 112 and 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure by removing the conduct of preliminary
investigation from judges of the first level courts.
(Conquilla vs. Bernardo, 642 SCRA 288 [2011])
The Supreme Court has consistently adopted the policy
of noninterference in the conduct of preliminary
investigations, and to leave the investigating prosecutor
sufficient latitude of discretion in the determination of
what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable
cause. (Elma vs. Jacobi, 675 SCRA 20 [2012])
o0o
_______________
51 Schroeder v. Saldevar, 550 Phil. 719, 723724; 522 SCRA 624, 628
(2007).
52 See Tetangco v. Ombudsman, supra note 39 at p. 234; p. 253.
Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Ciron Vs Guttierez PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ciron Vs Guttierez PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ciron Vs Guttierez PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11/26/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 756

G.R. Nos. 19433941. April 20, 2015.*

Ombudsman; Doctrine of Noninterference; The Supreme Court

VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 111

vate individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers);

112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

finality, the case may no longer be revived by mere motion as

VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 113

the OCPIriga, through Beltran and Contreras, need not

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

1 Rollo, pp. 318.

3 Id., at pp. 3540.

114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ago D. Ortega, Jr. (Ortega, Jr.) of violating Section 3(e)4

4 SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.In addition to acts or

VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 115

Subsequently, Ciron filed the following motions: (a)

116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

March 28, 200819 and June 10, 2008,20 which were

19 Id., at pp. 108110.

VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 117

Ciron vs. Gutierrez

In her counteraffidavit,27 Beltran denied the charges

27 Id., at pp. 8591.

118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ciron vs. Gutierrez

liminary investigation. The Ombudsman likewise agreed

35 Id., at pp. 2932.

VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 119

all in contemplation of law.38

all in contemplation of law.38 The Courts

xxx this Courts consistent policy has been to maintain

120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Iriga. The essential elements of such crime are as

VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 121

In Baares II, the private prosecutor attempted to

This Court has previously held that an order dismissing a case

The dismissal of the case, and the lapse of the reglementary

45 Id., at pp. 577578; p. 46.

122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

missal, effectively operated to remove the case from the Courts

revived by mere motion in the original docketed action,

VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 123

a new complaint for preliminary investigation had to be

Anent the argument that a new preliminary

124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

in court.51 Courts cannot interfere with the

discretion except when there is grave abuse of discretion,52

Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), LeonardoDe Castro,

Petition dismissed, Joint Resolution and Joint Order

Notes.The conduct of preliminary investigation by

Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like