Enemecio v.

Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas)

Doctrine:

In any event, jurisprudence now holds that where the findings of the Ombudsman on the
existence of probable cause in criminal cases is tainted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the aggrieved party may file a petition
for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65.

In PCGG v. Desierto, the Court ruled that the Ombudsman has the discretion to determine
whether a criminal case, given the facts and circumstances, should be filed or not. The
Ombudsman may dismiss the complaint forthwith if he finds it insufficient in form or substance.
On the other hand, he may continue with the inquiry if he finds otherwise. If, in the
Ombudsman’s view, the complaint is sufficient in form and substance, he may proceed with the
investigation. In fact, the Ombudsman has the power to dismiss a complaint outright without
going through a preliminary investigation

Facts:
1. Enemecio is a utility worker at the Cebu State College of Science and Technology, College
of Fisheries Technology ("CSCST-CFT"), Cebu. Private respondent Servando Bernante is
an Assistant Professor IV of CSCST-CFT.
2. Enemecio filed an administrative complaint for gross misconduct, falsification of public
documents, malversation, dishonesty and defamation against Bernante before the Office of
the Executive Dean to which the Dean indorsed the complaint to the Office of the
Ombudsman for the Visayas.
3. Enemecio also filed with the Ombudsman a criminal complaint against Bernante for
falsification of public document.
4. Enemecio’s allegations:
a. Bernante had caused the spray-painting of obscene and unprintable words against her
on the walls of the CSCST Carmen Campus.
b. Bernante also shouted defamatory words against her while she was inside the school
premises.
c. Bernante made it appear in his leave application that he was on forced leave from and
on vacation leave. In truth, Bernante was serving a 20-day prison term for slight physical
injuries.
d. Bernante was able to receive his salary during his Bernante’s application for leave was
approved. Enemecio contended that Bernante was not entitled to receive salary for that
period because of his "falsified leave applications."

5. Bernante did not deny that he was in prison. He maintained that he received his salary for
that period because of his duly approved leave applications.
6. Ombudsman rendered a decision dismissing the administrative complaint against
Bernante.

OMB’s ruling:
a. There is no regulation restricting the purpose or use of an employee’s earned leave
credits. It matters not how he utilizes his leave for it is not a requirement that the specifics
or reasons for going on leave be spelled out in such application.
b. On the issue of the spray painting of obscenities on the walls of the school, the evidence
is insufficient to prove that respondent was the person responsible
c. On defamation- the act of the respondent was not in relation to his official functions as a
professor
7. On the same date, the Ombudsman dismissed the criminal complaint against Bernante
finding no probable cause to indict Bernante for falsification of public document.

OMB’s Ruling: There appears to be no regulation or law against the utilization of leave
credits for purposes other than recreation.
8. Ombudsman denied Enemecio’s motion to reconsider the dismissal of
the criminal complaint. OMB found the complainant’s arguments untenable since there is
no dispute that the leave forms are public documents.
9. Enemecio filed a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals,
assailing the resolutions which dismissed the criminal complaint and denied the motion for
reconsideration.

CA’s ruling: Applying the ruling in Fabian v. Desierto, the appellate court dismissed
Enemecio’s petition for having been filed out of time. The appellate court also stated that
the proper remedy available to Enemecio was a petition for review under Rule 43 and
not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

10. Enemecio argued that the appellate court should not have relied on Fabian. Enemecio
contended that Fabian declared void only Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 and Section
7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 insofar as they provide for appeals in
administrative disciplinary cases from the Ombudsman to the Supreme Court. Enemecio
asserted that the other provisions of Section 27 of RA 6770 and Section 7 of AO No. 07,
including the "final and unappealable character" of orders, resolutions or decisions
exonerating a respondent from any criminal liability, still stand. Enemecio stated that she
filed the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals because she
considered Bernante’s absolution from the administrative complaint as already final and
unappealable.
11. CA’s ruling: The Supreme Court held that appeals in administrative disciplinary cases from
the Ombudsman to the Court of Appeals must be brought by petition for review under Rule
43. The appellate court stated that a petition for review must be filed within 15 days from
notice of the assailed final order or resolution. Since Enemecio received on 22 March 2000
a copy of the Ombudsman’s Order denying her motion for reconsideration, CA ruled that
Enemecio had only until 6 April 2000 to file a petition for review. Enemecio filed her petition
only on 8 May 2000.
Issue/s: Ruling:
1. Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed before the Court 1. NO
of Appeals is the proper remedy to question the dismissal of
a criminal complaint filed with the Ombudsman
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis:

1. Enemecio now comes to this Court via this petition for review, claiming that "what was
involved in the petition before the appellate court was the administrative, not the
criminal case."
2. It is clear from the records that Atty. Fernandez (Enemecio’s counsel) filed with the Court
of Appeals a certiorari petition assailing the Ombudsman’s Resolution and Order
dismissing the criminal case, not the administrative case against Bernante. For this
reason, the appellate court in its 7 December 2000 Resolution rectified itself and stated
that Fabian does not apply to Enemecio’s petition as the Fabian ruling applies only to
administrative disciplinary actions.
3. Even if we consider Enemecio’s petition before the Court of Appeals as questioning the
dismissal of the administrative case against Bernante, the action must also fail. Appeals
from decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary actions should be
brought to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.
4. In any event, jurisprudence now holds that where the findings of the Ombudsman on the
existence of probable cause in criminal cases is tainted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the aggrieved party may file a petition
for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65. Since Enemecio filed
a certiorari petition before the Court of Appeals, instead of the Supreme Court, she
availed of a wrong remedy in the wrong forum.
5. Even if we consider the substance of the case, we find no grave abuse of discretion in
the Ombudsman’s determination of whether there exists a prima facie case against
Bernante
6. Under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of falsification
of public documents through an untruthful narration of facts are: (a) the offender makes
in a document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (b) the offender has a legal
obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated; (c) the facts narrated by the
offender are absolutely false; and (d) the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was
made with the wrongful intent to injure a third person
7. Enemecio failed to point to any law imposing upon Bernante the legal obligation to
disclose where he was going to spend his leave of absence.
8. In PCGG v. Desierto, the Court ruled that the Ombudsman has the discretion to
determine whether a criminal case, given the facts and circumstances, should be
filed or not. The Ombudsman may dismiss the complaint forthwith if he finds it
insufficient in form or substance. On the other hand, he may continue with the inquiry
if he finds otherwise. If, in the Ombudsman’s view, the complaint is sufficient in form
and substance, he may proceed with the investigation. In fact, the Ombudsman has the
power to dismiss a complaint outright without going through a preliminary investigation