G.R. No. 131445, May 27, 2004 AMADO G. PEREZ et al., vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN et al. CORONA, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioners, members of the Kilusang Bayan ng mga Magtitinda ng Bagong Pamilihang Bayan ng Muntinlupa, Inc.(KBMBPM), instituted two complaints at the Office of the Ombudsman against several respondents, one of whom was then Mayor Ignacio R. Bunye, for violation of RA 3019 (also known as the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act"). Private respondents allegedly destroyed the doors of the KBMBPM office while serving on petitioners the Take-Over Order of the KBMBPM management dated October 28, 1998 issued by then Agriculture Secretary Carlos G. Dominguez.

In disposing of said complaints on April 11, 1997, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a resolution (hereinafter, "Ombudsman resolution") excluding respondent Bunye from the criminal indictment.

Aggrieved, petitioners elevated the case to the CA, which in turn was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. Hence the present appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by petitioners herein due to lack of jurisdiction.

HELD:

The Supreme Court held that although the CA was correct in dismissing the petition for certiorari, it erroneously invoked as ratio decidendi Section 27 of RA 6770 which applies in administrative cases only, not criminal cases, such as the graft and corruption charge at bar.

Further, the Office of the Ombudsman did not act in excess of its jurisdiction since it is an elementary rule that a preliminary investigation is in effect a realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of the case. Sufficient proof of the guilt of the accused must be adduced so that when the case is tried, the trial court may not be bound, as a matter of law, to order an acquittal.Hence, if the Ombudsman, using professional judgment, finds the case dismissible, the Court shall respect such findings, unless clothed with grave abuse of discretion. Otherwise, the functions of the courts will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it. In much the same way, the courts will be swamped with cases if they will have to review the exercise of discretion on the part of fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time the latter decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant.