Nava vs. NBI Davao City 1.

Anonymous letter-complaints were filed before the Office of the Ombudsman in Mindanao alleging that fake Equivalent ecord !orms "E !s# of several teachers of $avao %at&l '( were made the base for the )lantilla Allocation *ist ")A*# for year 1++, and for their promotion and salary. -. .he Ombudsman in Mindanao referred the matter to the %/0 disclosing that one Myrna 1ele2 submitted fake E !s of teachers approved by %ava the then $E3( egional $irector for egion 40. .he %/0 recommended the filing of charges against the teachers and officials concerned. 5. .he Ombudsman in Mindanao6 in a 7oint resolution recommended the indictment of %ava before the (andiganbayan for !alsification of Official $ocuments thru eckless 0mprudence. 8. .he 9oint esolution was approved by Ombudsman $esierto. An information was filed against %ava. :. %ava filed for a Motion for einvestigation which was granted. .he (pecial )rosecutor then recommended the dismissal of the charges against %ava for insufficiency of evidence. /ut the Ombudsman disapproved the same. ;. %ava assailed the disapproval directly before the (3 as a petition for certiorari under ule ;:. %/0 in its comment asserted that since the petition was filed pursuant to (ec. -< of A ;<<=6 %ava&s appeal should be taken to the 3A by way of petition for review under ule 85 of the 3 according to the case of !abian vs. $esierto. <. %ava in his reply stressed that the petition was filed before the promulgation of the !abian case and maintained that (ec.-< of A ;;<= was available as a remedy in nonadministrative case. 'e posited that the 3A may not take cogni2ance of the case for the right to appeal to the 3A granted to an aggrieved party in admin disciplinary cases as ruled in !abian is not available to an aggrieved party in a criminal case. ,. %ava implored the (3 to consider the petition as petition for certiorari under ule ;: as the actuations of the Ombudsman amounted to grave abuse of discretion. >O% the (3 has 7urisdiction over petitions questioning resolutions or orders of the Ombudsman. 'eld? .he (3 has acquired 7urisdiction. As %ava beseeched the (3 to consider his petition for certiorari under ule ;:6 (3 shall treat the same as one. 1. 0n cases wherein it is alleged that the Ombudsman has acted with grave abuse of discretion a special civil action of certiorari under ule ;: may be filed before the (3 to set aside the Ombudsman&s order or resolution. -. 'owever the petition fails to show a grave abuse of discretion. .he ombudsman need not render anew a statement of facts or elaborate on applicable law when he disapproves the recommendation of the (pecial )rosecutor "()#. 5. As he opined differently from the of the () it does not necessarily follow that it acted with grave abuse of discretion. 0f the Ombudsman may dismiss a complaint outright for lack or merit6 it is also within his discretion to determine whether the evidence before him is sufficient to establish probable cause. 8. 0n case of conflict between the conclusion of the Ombudsman and the ()6 the former&s decision shall prevail since the () is under his supervision and control.