Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > July 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. Nos. 192888-89 : July 03, 2012] DENNIS M. VILLA-IGNACIO v. OMBUDSMAN MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS BOARD OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, LUZ L. QUINONES-MARCOS, AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JULY 3, 2012, which reads as follows:  cralaw

G.R. Nos. 192888-89 (Dennis M. Villa-Ignacio v. Ombudsman Merceditas N. Gutierrez, The Internal Affairs Board of the Office of the Ombudsman, represented by its Chairman Orlando C. Casimiro, Luz L. Quinones-Marcos, and the Sandiganbayan)

RESOLUTION 

After a perusal of the records of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition for failure to show that the Office of the Ombudsman committed any grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to indict petitioner Dennis M. Villa-Ignacio for the crimes of falsification of public document under paragraph 4, Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and perjury penalized under Article 183 of the same Code. The Court has consistently adopted a policy of non-interference in the exercise of the Ombudsman's investigatory powers^[1] and the authority to determine the presence or absence of probable cause except when the finding is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.^[2]  cralaw

Indisputably, petitioner, who sought promotion to the position of Ombudsman, declared in his Personal Data Sheet (PDS) dated October 28, 2005 submitted before the Judicial and Bar Council that no administrative sanction has ever been imposed on him. However, in a Resolution^[3] dated March 14, 2001 in A.M. No. RTJ-00-1592, he was meted the penalty of reprimand for his failure to resolve a motion for reconsideration of the decision he issued.

Petitioner's contention that he was not motivated by any desire to gain unwarranted advantage over other qualified applicants and that the nondisclosure was due to an honest mistake and made in good faith are matters essentially factual and evidentiary^[4] in nature which are best addressed to the evaluation of the Sandiganbayan where the criminal cases for falsification and perjury are pending. The present petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is hardly the appropriate remedy and forum for petitioner to raise such issues, as only jurisdictional issues can be resolved herein.^[5] 

The Court likewise cannot sustain petitioner's claim that he can only be prosecuted for a single offense from his single act of non-disclosure because the determination of what charges to file and who are to be charged are matters addressed to the discretion of the Ombudsman and involve factual issues which should be resolved after trial on the merits, and not in this case.^[6] 

Finally, the Court cannot give credence to petitioner's claim of violation of due process for not having been furnished copies of the PDS for the years 2002 and 2003, as well as the attachments to his 2005 PDS since he was only charged for his omission to disclose his previous administrative sanction in his 2005 PDS, which he admittedly received." cralaw

Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta and Del Castillo, JJ., no part.
Abad, J., on official leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court

 

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Artillero v. Casimiro, G.R. No. 190569, April 25, 2012.

^[2] Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan (4th Division), G.R. Nos. 169727-28, August 18, 2006, 499 SCRA 375, 394. 

^[3] Rollo, pp. 114-116. 

^[4] People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 171188, June 19, 2009, 590 SCRA 95. 

^[5] Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan (4th Division), supra at 402. 

^[6] Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan (4th Division), supra.