Case No. 17. HernandoBar
Case No. 17 GR No. 230171 2021-09-27
ILDEFONSO TV PATDU v. CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES
HERNANDO, J.
 |
| Case No. 17 GR No. 230171 |
Proper remedy to assail the OMB's finding of probable cause in criminal cases; The doctrine laid down in Carpio-Morales has no application in criminal cases before the OMB.
The petition has no merit. The CA did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari outright. The proper mode to assail the OMB's finding of probable cause in criminal cases is by filing a petition for certiorari before this Court— which petitioners failed to do.
The question to be resolved in this case is not novel Indeed, in Carpio-Morales, the Court struck down as unconstitutional the second paragraph of Section 14 of RA 6770. However, it is settled that the doctrine laid down in Carpio-Morales has no application in criminal cases before the OMB.
Advertisements.
Scroll down to continue 📖
 |
| Handy and organized printed syllabus. |
Shop here: https://c.lazada.com.ph/t/c.YKPlq2
LAZADA - https://go.shopple.co/spi4sz SHOPEE -https://go.shopple.co/spi4u4
: by Gothic Publication.I found this great deal on Lazada! Check it out!
Computer Desk | Desktop Study Table with Drawer and Shelves Office Writing Desk Study Desk
Product Price: ₱2,400
Discount Price: ₱1,106
Up to 50% off!
🛒 Shop here: https://go.shopple.co/spi8kp
In Gatchalian v. Office of the Ombudsman (Gatchalian), the Court examined previous case law and clarified that "Carpio-Morales has limited application to administrative cases before the OMB."
The antecedents of Gatchalian are similar to the instant case. The OMB found probable cause to indict petitioner Gatchalian and other individuals for violation of RA 3019, Malversation, and violation of the Manual of Regulations for Banks in relation to the New Central Bank Act.
A thorough reading of the [Carpio-]Morales decision, therefore, would reveal that it was limited in its application—that it was meant to cover only decisions or orders of the Ombudsman in administrative cases.
The Court never intimated, much less categorically stated, that it was abandoning its rulings in Ruizon and Estrada and the distinction made therein between the appellate recourse for decisions or orders of the Ombudsman in administrative and non-administrative cases. Bearing in mind that Morales dealt with an interlocutory order in an administrative case, it cannot thus be read to apply to decisions or orders of the Ombudsman in non-administrative or criminal cases.
x x x x
It is thus clear that the [Carpio-]Morales decision never intended to disturb the well-established distinction between the appellate remedies for orders, directives, and decisions arising from administrative cases and those arising from non-administrative or criminal cases.
Gatchalian's contention that the unconstitutionality of Section 14 of R.A. 6770 declared in [Carpio-]Morales equally applies to both administrative and criminal cases—and thus the CA from then on had jurisdiction to entertain petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 to question orders and decisions arising from criminal cases—is simply misplaced.
Section 14 of R.A. 6770 was declared unconstitutional because it trampled on the rule-making powers of the Court by:
1) prescribing the mode of appeal, which was by Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, for all cases whether final or not; and
2) rendering nugatory the certiorari jurisdiction of the CA over incidents arising from administrative cases.
Related:
• Cases penned by Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando PART 1 case no. 1 to 40 [FULLTEXT].pdf
• Cases penned by Justice Hernando (Part II) Case No. 41 to 80.
• Cases penned by HERNANDO, J. (Part III) Case No. 81 to 120.
• Cases Penned by Justice Hernando (Part IV) Case No. 121 to 160.
• Cases penned by HERNANDO, J. (Part 5) Case No. 161 to 200.
• Cases penned by HERNANDO, J. (Part 6) Case No. 201 to 240.
• How I did it; how I aced the Bar Exams.
The unconstitutionality of Section 14 of R.A. 6770, therefore, did not necessarily have an effect over the appellate procedure for orders and decisions arising from criminal cases precisely because the said procedure was not prescribed by the aforementioned section.
To recall, the rule that decisions or orders of the Ombudsman finding the existence of probable cause (or the lack thereof) should be questioned through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed with the Supreme Court was laid down by the Court itself in the cases of Kuizon, Tirol Jr., Mendcza-Arce v. Ombudsman, Estrada, and subsequent cases affirming the said rule.
The rule was, therefore, not anchored on Section 14 of R.A. 6770, but was instead a rule prescribed by the Court in the exercise of its rule-making powers. The declaration of unconstitutionality of Section 14 of R.A. 6770 was therefore immaterial insofar as the appellate procedure for orders and decisions by the Ombudsman in criminal cases is concerned.
 |
| Riguera (2022) Set - Remedial Law Reviewer - Vol. 1 & 2 - Primer on - Volume One Two I II |
The argument therefore that the promulgation of the [Carpio-]Morales decision—a case which involved an interlocutory order arising from an administrative case, and which did not categorically abandon the cases of Kuizon, Tirol, Jr., Mendoza-Arce, and Estrada—gave the CA certiorari jurisdiction over final orders and decisions arising from non-administrative or criminal cases is clearly untenable.
To stress, it is the better practice that when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the same.
Following the principle of stare decisis ei nan quieta movers—or follow past precedents and do not disturb what has been settled—the Court therefore upholds the abovementioned established roles on appellate procedure, and so holds that the CA did not err in dismissing the case filed by petitioner Gatchalian for lack of jurisdiction.
Therefore, the remedy to assail the OMB's findings of probable cause in criminal or non-administrative cases Is still by filing a petition for certiorari with this Court, and not with the CA. This doctrine has never been struck down or abandoned by Carpio-Morales.
 |
| Questions & Answers of 2005-2021 Supreme Court Decisions in Remedial Law (2022 edition) |
This is supported by a more recent case, Yatco v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon (Yatco). Yatco also assailed the OMB's ruling in a criminal case for lack of probable cause before the CA, which the latter likewise dismissed. As thai case was also further appealed, the Court, in its disposition, reiterated Gatchalian, and stated:
Meanwhile, with respect to criminal charges, the Court has settled that the remedy of an aggrieved party from a resolution of the Ombudsman finding the presence or absence of probable cause is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and the petition should be filed not before the CA, but before the Supreme Court.
 |
| Emilio Llanes (2016) - Legal Maxims with Latin Proverbs, A Compilation of - Law Book |
In the fairly recent case of Gatchalian v. Office of the Ombudsman, (decided on August 1, 2018), the Court traced the genesis of the foregoing procedure and cited a wealth of jurisprudence recognizing the same:
x x x x
Thus, it is evident from the foregoing that the remedy to assail the ruling of the Ombudsman in non-administrative/criminal cases file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court) is well-entrenched In our jurisprudence. Based on the foregoing jurisprudence, it remains that OMB resolutions on probable cause In criminal cases are assailable by filing a petition for certiorari with this Court. This has always been and is still the prevailing rale. To repeat, Carpio-Morales did not invalidate this remedy as it covers administrative cases only. The CA has no jurisdiction over findings of probable cause in criminal cases.
 |
| BRAIN ENHANCER STIMULATOR OIL (BRAIN POWER! 15ml) by Tin's Organic |
In the instant case, the CA, therefore, did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners have erroneously filed their petition for certiorari with the appellate court, when it should have been filed before this Court.
It follows then that petitioners have lost their right to assail the OMB's finding of probable cause against them when they elevated the case before the wrong forum, Similar with how the Court proeesded in Gatchalian and Yatco, it is not proper for this Court to just assume jurisdiction and rule on the merits of the instant case given petitioners' availment of the wrong remedy.
 |
| Memo Plus Gold 30's |
Now that Informations were already filed in the Sandiggnbayan, petitioners have all the opportunity there during the trial proper to dispute the findings of probable cause, and, possibly, to eventually clear their names from the alleged crimes.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Resolutions dated August 4,2016 and February 21,2017 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 146382 are hereby AFFIRMED,
We hope you are all well and studying diligently for the upcoming Bar Exams. Please consider donating to assist us in keeping our website up to date for future reference. This will allow us to continue assisting our law students and future Bar candidates by providing them with useful content to aid in their legal studies.
-Atty Phil. Juris.
Comments
Post a Comment