Lawyerly

GR No. 176830

2014-02-11

SERENO, C.J.

"The essence of due process is reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit evidence in support of one's defense."[88] What is proscribed is lack of opportunity to be heard.[89] Thus, one who has been afforded a chance to present one's own side of the story cannot claim denial of due process.[90]

GR No. 176504

2008-09-03

FERDINAND A. CRUZ v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The settled rule is that when an accused pleads to the charge, he is deemed to have waived the right to preliminary investigation and the right to question any irregularity that surrounds it.[11] In the instant case, Ferdinand did not present evidence that arraignment was forced upon him. On the contrary, he voluntarily pleaded to the charge and actively participated in the trial of the case.

GR NO. 156527

2007-03-05

NEMESIO M. CALIM v. JESUS F. GUERRERO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

There is, verily, a limited applicability of this court's pronouncement in Fabian. The Fabian ruling does not extend to orders or decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases. Kuizon v. Ombudsman[39] and Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas),[40] instructed that petitions for certiorari questioning the Ombudsman's orders or decisions in criminal cases should be filed in the Supreme Court and not the Court of Appeals.[41] This is the prevailing rule.[42] The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, in admonishing the private respondents, deemed the matter to be one in the nature of an administrative disciplinary case. The petitioner, in filing the instant Petition for Mandamus before this Court, took a route that is antagonistic to prevailing rules and jurisprudence.

GR NO. 168617

2007-02-19

BERNADETTE L. ADASA v. CECILLE S. ABALOS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Moreover, the settled rule is that when an accused pleads to the charge, he is deemed to have waived the right to preliminary investigation and the right to question any irregularity that surrounds it.[18] This precept is also applicable in cases of reinvestigation as well as in cases of review of such reinvestigation. In this case, when petitioner unconditionally pleaded to the charge, she effectively waived the reinvestigation of the case by the prosecutor as well as the right to appeal the result thereof to the DOJ Secretary. Thus, with the arraignment of the petitioner, the DOJ Secretary can no longer entertain the appeal or petition for review because petitioner had already waived or abandoned the same.

GR NO. 147640

2006-10-16

JOWETT K. GOLANGCO v. ATTY. JONE B. FUNG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only.[13] It cannot, therefore, review the orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases.

GR NO. 169098

2006-10-12

MANUEL BAVIERA v. ROLANDO B. ZOLETA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

On the first issue, respondent Gutierrez contends that the proper remedy of petitioner to assail the Resolutions of the Ombudsman finding no probable cause for violation of R.A. No. 3019, Section 3(a), (e) and (j) was to file a petition for certiorari with this Court, not with the CA. In 1999, this Court ruled in Tirol, Jr. v. Del Rosario[28] that the remedy of the aggrieved party from a resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman finding the presence or absence of probable cause in criminal cases was to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in this Court. The Court reiterated its ruling in Kuizon v. Desierto[29] and Tirol, Jr. v. Del Rosario.[30] And on February 22, 2006, in Pontejos v. Office of the Ombudsman,[31] the Court 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 in this Court under Rule 65.

GR NO. 164664

2006-07-20

CARLOS C. FUENTES v. SANDIGANBAYAN

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Indubitably, the petition, even if considered as petition for review, was time-barred. This is so because petitioner received the resolution of the Sandiganbayan denying his motion for reconsideration on June 21, 2004, hence, he had only until July 5, 2004 within which to file his petition for review. The petition was filed only on August 16, 2004, after the reglementary period had already lapsed. Moreover, the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner, which is an independent action and not a mode of appeal, did not toll the running of the reglementary period.[34]

GR NO. 142030

2005-04-21

ARTURO GALLARDO v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In the same vein, respondent Sandiganbayan could not be blamed for not considering the findings of the special prosecutor because the rule is that in case of conflict in the conclusions of the Ombudsman and the special prosecutor, it is the former's decision that shall prevail since the Office of the Special Prosecutor is under the supervision and control of the Ombudsman.[23] Moreover, once a case has been filed with the court, it is that court, no longer the prosecution, which has full control of the case, so much so that the information may grant or deny it, in the faithful exercise of judicial discretion.[24] The court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it.[25] In the instant case, respondent court is convinced that there is adequate evidence against the petitioners. Absence of proof that it gravely abused its discretion, the conclusion arrived at by the Sandiganbayan in its assailed resolution, will not be disturbed.

GR NO. 134509

2005-04-12

VENANCIO R. NAVA v. NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

TINGA, J.

We agree that the alternative remedy avails. Reiterating Tirol,[49] we held in Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas),[50] that although as a consequence of the decision in Fabian,[51] appeals from the orders, directives, or decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases are now cognizable by the Court of Appeals, nevertheless in cases in which it is alleged that the Ombudsman has acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 may be filed with this Court to set aside the Ombudsman's order or resolution. In Kuizon v. Desierto,[52] we held that the Court has jurisdiction over such petitions questioning resolutions or orders of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal cases. As Nava himself beseeched the Court to consider his Petition as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, we shall treat the same as one.

AM NO. P-97-1258

2005-01-31

OCA v. CLERK OF COURT ERMELINA C. BERNARDINO

PER CURIAM

The records show respondent Tuazon failed to faithfully perform her duties as cash clerk. The question now is: Can she be held administratively liable despite her failure to answer the charge against her? The Court rules in the affirmative. Respondent Tuazon was given the opportunity to refute the charge against her, but she failed to do so. The essence of due process is that a party is afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present any evidence he may have in support of his defense.[51] What the law proscribes is lack of opportunity to be heard.[52] Where the opportunity to be heard has been accorded, there is no denial of due process.[53] If it is not availed of, it is deemed waived or forfeited without violating the constitutional guarantee.[54]

GR NO. 153578

2005-01-28

VICENTE C. JIMENEZ v. EULOGIO TOLENTINO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Like private respondents, public respondents Ombudsman officers assert that the Court of Appeals was actually devoid of jurisdiction pursuant to Section 14 of Rep. Act. No. 6770 and this Court's ruling in Kuizon v. Desierto.[7]

GR No. 156160

2004-12-09

JOSEPH E. ESTRADA v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Petitioner contends that certiorari under Rule 65 should first be filed with the Court of Appeals as the doctrine of hierarchy of courts precludes the immediate invocation of this Court's jurisdiction. Unfortunately for petitioner, he is flogging a dead horse as this argument has already been shot down in Kuizon v. Ombudsman[12] where we decreed

GR No. 149069

2004-09-20

ENRICO P. QUIAMBAO v. ANIANO DESIERTO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

As a rule, we have consistently adopted a policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations and provided sufficient latitude of discretion to the investigating prosecutor to determine what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause.[21] As we held in the case of The Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Ombudsman Aniano Desierto:[22] The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers is vested in the Office of the Ombudsman. To insulate the Office from outside pressure and improper influence, the Constitution as well as R.A. 6770 has endowed it with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory powers virtually free from legislative, executive or judicial intervention. This court consistently refrains from interfering with the exercise of its powers, and respects the initiative and independence inherent in the Ombudsman who, "beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of the public service". The functions of the courts will be hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, or compelling it to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the prosecutor each time an Information is filed in court or a private complainant's complaint is dismissed.[23] Ultimately, the discretion to determine whether a case should be filed or not lies with the Ombudsman. It is basically his call. Absent any good and compelling reason which indicates otherwise, his findings of probable cause deserve great respect.

GR No. 128609

2004-01-28

DOUGLAS F. ANAMA v. CA

TINGA, J,

The essence of due process is a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit evidence in support of one's defense. What the law proscribes, therefore, is the lack of opportunity to be heard.[34] As long as a party is given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he would have no reason to complain, for it is this opportunity to be heard that makes up the essence of due process.[35] It is beyond dispute that petitioner participated in the trial. He was able to adduce evidence in his behalf and given the opportunity to refute those of private respondents. Clearly, petitioner cannot complain that he was deprived of due process.

GR No. 149148

2002-04-05

SUSAN MENDOZA-ARCE v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

MENDOZA, J.

No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding fifteen (15) days. The contention has no merit. In Tirol, Jr. v. del Rosario,[19] we held that although as a consequence of the decision in Fabian v. Desierto[20] appeals from the orders, directives, or decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases are now cognizable by the Court of Appeals, nevertheless in cases in which it is alleged that the Ombudsman has acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 may be filed in this Court to set aside the Ombudsman's order or resolution. In Kuizon v. Desierto,[21] we again held that this Court has jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari questioning resolutions or orders of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal cases.

	GR No. 176830 2014-02-11	SATURNINO C. OCAMPO v. EPHREM S. ABANDO SERENO, C.J.
"The essence of due process is reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit evidence in support of one's defense."[88] What is proscribed is lack of opportunity to be heard.[89] Thus, one who has been afforded a chance to present one's own side of the story cannot claim denial of due process.[90]
	GR No. 176504 2008-09-03	FERDINAND A. CRUZ v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The settled rule is that when an accused pleads to the charge, he is deemed to have waived the right to preliminary investigation and the right to question any irregularity that surrounds it.[11] In the instant case, Ferdinand did not present evidence that arraignment was forced upon him. On the contrary, he voluntarily pleaded to the charge and actively participated in the trial of the case.
	GR NO. 156527 2007-03-05	NEMESIO M. CALIM v. JESUS F. GUERRERO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
There is, verily, a limited applicability of this court's pronouncement in Fabian. The Fabian ruling does not extend to orders or decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases. Kuizon v. Ombudsman[39] and Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas),[40] instructed that petitions for certiorari questioning the Ombudsman's orders or decisions in criminal cases should be filed in the Supreme Court and not the Court of Appeals.[41] This is the prevailing rule.[42] The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, in admonishing the private respondents, deemed the matter to be one in the nature of an administrative disciplinary case. The petitioner, in filing the instant Petition for Mandamus before this Court, took a route that is antagonistic to prevailing rules and jurisprudence.
	GR NO. 168617 2007-02-19	BERNADETTE L. ADASA v. CECILLE S. ABALOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Moreover, the settled rule is that when an accused pleads to the charge, he is deemed to have waived the right to preliminary investigation and the right to question any irregularity that surrounds it.[18] This precept is also applicable in cases of reinvestigation as well as in cases of review of such reinvestigation. In this case, when petitioner unconditionally pleaded to the charge, she effectively waived the reinvestigation of the case by the prosecutor as well as the right to appeal the result thereof to the DOJ Secretary. Thus, with the arraignment of the petitioner, the DOJ Secretary can no longer entertain the appeal or petition for review because petitioner had already waived or abandoned the same.
	GR NO. 147640 2006-10-16	JOWETT K. GOLANGCO v. ATTY. JONE B. FUNG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only.[13] It cannot, therefore, review the orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases.
	GR NO. 169098 2006-10-12	MANUEL BAVIERA v. ROLANDO B. ZOLETA CALLEJO, SR., J.
On the first issue, respondent Gutierrez contends that the proper remedy of petitioner to assail the Resolutions of the Ombudsman finding no probable cause for violation of R.A. No. 3019, Section 3(a), (e) and (j) was to file a petition for certiorari with this Court, not with the CA. In 1999, this Court ruled in Tirol, Jr. v. Del Rosario[28] that the remedy of the aggrieved party from a resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman finding the presence or absence of probable cause in criminal cases was to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in this Court. The Court reiterated its ruling in Kuizon v. Desierto[29] and Tirol, Jr. v. Del Rosario.[30] And on February 22, 2006, in Pontejos v. Office of the Ombudsman,[31] the Court 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 in this Court under Rule 65.
	GR NO. 164664 2006-07-20	CARLOS C. FUENTES v. SANDIGANBAYAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
Indubitably, the petition, even if considered as petition for review, was time-barred. This is so because petitioner received the resolution of the Sandiganbayan denying his motion for reconsideration on June 21, 2004, hence, he had only until July 5, 2004 within which to file his petition for review. The petition was filed only on August 16, 2004, after the reglementary period had already lapsed. Moreover, the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner, which is an independent action and not a mode of appeal, did not toll the running of the reglementary period.[34]
	GR NO. 142030 2005-04-21	ARTURO GALLARDO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the same vein, respondent Sandiganbayan could not be blamed for not considering the findings of the special prosecutor because the rule is that in case of conflict in the conclusions of the Ombudsman and the special prosecutor, it is the former's decision that shall prevail since the Office of the Special Prosecutor is under the supervision and control of the Ombudsman.[23] Moreover, once a case has been filed with the court, it is that court, no longer the prosecution, which has full control of the case, so much so that the information may grant or deny it, in the faithful exercise of judicial discretion.[24] The court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it.[25] In the instant case, respondent court is convinced that there is adequate evidence against the petitioners. Absence of proof that it gravely abused its discretion, the conclusion arrived at by the Sandiganbayan in its assailed resolution, will not be disturbed.
	GR NO. 134509 2005-04-12	VENANCIO R. NAVA v. NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION TINGA, J.
We agree that the alternative remedy avails. Reiterating Tirol,[49] we held in Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas),[50] that although as a consequence of the decision in Fabian,[51] appeals from the orders, directives, or decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases are now cognizable by the Court of Appeals, nevertheless in cases in which it is alleged that the Ombudsman has acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 may be filed with this Court to set aside the Ombudsman's order or resolution. In Kuizon v. Desierto,[52] we held that the Court has jurisdiction over such petitions questioning resolutions or orders of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal cases. As Nava himself beseeched the Court to consider his Petition as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, we shall treat the same as one.
	AM NO. P-97-1258 2005-01-31	OCA v. CLERK OF COURT ERMELINA C. BERNARDINO PER CURIAM
The records show respondent Tuazon failed to faithfully perform her duties as cash clerk. The question now is: Can she be held administratively liable despite her failure to answer the charge against her? The Court rules in the affirmative. Respondent Tuazon was given the opportunity to refute the charge against her, but she failed to do so. The essence of due process is that a party is afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present any evidence he may have in support of his defense.[51] What the law proscribes is lack of opportunity to be heard.[52] Where the opportunity to be heard has been accorded, there is no denial of due process.[53] If it is not availed of, it is deemed waived or forfeited without violating the constitutional guarantee.[54]
	GR NO. 153578 2005-01-28	VICENTE C. JIMENEZ v. EULOGIO TOLENTINO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Like private respondents, public respondents Ombudsman officers assert that the Court of Appeals was actually devoid of jurisdiction pursuant to Section 14 of Rep. Act. No. 6770 and this Court's ruling in Kuizon v. Desierto.[7]
	GR No. 156160 2004-12-09	JOSEPH E. ESTRADA v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioner contends that certiorari under Rule 65 should first be filed with the Court of Appeals as the doctrine of hierarchy of courts precludes the immediate invocation of this Court's jurisdiction. Unfortunately for petitioner, he is flogging a dead horse as this argument has already been shot down in Kuizon v. Ombudsman[12] where we decreed
	GR No. 149069 2004-09-20	ENRICO P. QUIAMBAO v. ANIANO DESIERTO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As a rule, we have consistently adopted a policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations and provided sufficient latitude of discretion to the investigating prosecutor to determine what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause.[21] As we held in the case of The Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Ombudsman Aniano Desierto:[22] The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers is vested in the Office of the Ombudsman. To insulate the Office from outside pressure and improper influence, the Constitution as well as R.A. 6770 has endowed it with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory powers virtually free from legislative, executive or judicial intervention. This court consistently refrains from interfering with the exercise of its powers, and respects the initiative and independence inherent in the Ombudsman who, "beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of the public service". The functions of the courts will be hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, or compelling it to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the prosecutor each time an Information is filed in court or a private complainant's complaint is dismissed.[23] Ultimately, the discretion to determine whether a case should be filed or not lies with the Ombudsman. It is basically his call. Absent any good and compelling reason which indicates otherwise, his findings of probable cause deserve great respect.
	GR No. 128609 2004-01-28	DOUGLAS F. ANAMA v. CA TINGA, J,
The essence of due process is a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit evidence in support of one's defense. What the law proscribes, therefore, is the lack of opportunity to be heard.[34] As long as a party is given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he would have no reason to complain, for it is this opportunity to be heard that makes up the essence of due process.[35] It is beyond dispute that petitioner participated in the trial. He was able to adduce evidence in his behalf and given the opportunity to refute those of private respondents. Clearly, petitioner cannot complain that he was deprived of due process.
	GR No. 149148 2002-04-05	SUSAN MENDOZA-ARCE v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN MENDOZA, J.
No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding fifteen (15) days. The contention has no merit. In Tirol, Jr. v. del Rosario,[19] we held that although as a consequence of the decision in Fabian v. Desierto[20] appeals from the orders, directives, or decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases are now cognizable by the Court of Appeals, nevertheless in cases in which it is alleged that the Ombudsman has acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 may be filed in this Court to set aside the Ombudsman's order or resolution. In Kuizon v. Desierto,[21] we again held that this Court has jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari questioning resolutions or orders of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal cases.

BENEDICTO E. KUIZON v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO