Case Digest: Desierto vs Heirs of Margarita Ventura GR No 151800

Desierto vs Heirs of Margarita Ventura

GR No 151800                                                    November 5, 2009

Facts:

Heirs of Margarita Ventura ( the Heirs) filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a complaint for Falsification of Public Documents and violation of Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019 against Zenaida Palacio and spouses Edilberto and Celerina Darang. Palacio being the OIC of DAR designated Celerina to investigate the claims of the Heirs agaist her former husband Edilberto. Celerina supported the report with public documents which she falsified and Palacio issed a recommendation based on that report to award the landholding in dispute to Edilberto.

The DARAB recommended that the charged against the respondents be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. The CA then took cognizance of the case and granted the provisional dismissal the complaint against respondent for violation of Sec 3 (e) of RA 3019 but denied the dismissal of the complaint for falsification of public documents.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA has jurisdiction over decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman.

Ruling:

The CA has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only. It cannot, therefore, review the orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases. 

That since the CA has no jurisdiction over decisions and orders of the Ombudsman in criminal cases, its ruling on the case is void.