G.R. No. 84572-73 - Ajejandro vs. Court of Appeals

Amado G. Perez (deceased), represented by his widow Guillierma T. Perez, and members Mario S. Francisco, Rafael P. Argame, Mirasol V. Mendoza, Gloria S. Gonzalvo, and Maria Fe V. Bombase.
Members of the Kilusang Bayan ng mga Magtitinda ng Bagong Pamilihang Bayan ng Muntinlupa, Inc. (KBMBPM).

Office of the Ombudsman, Mayor Ignacio R. Bunye, Carlos G. Dominguez, Rogelio P. Madriaga, Recto Coronado, Teodora A. Diang, Tomas M. Osias, Reynaldo Camilon, and Benjamin Bulos.

Petitioners filed two complaints with the Office of the Ombudsman (docketed OMB-0-89-0983 and OMB-0-89-1007) alleging violations of RA 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
The complaints were based on the factual allegation that respondents, among others, were involved in the destruction of the KBMBPM office doors during the issuance of a Take-Over Order dated October 28, 1988, issued by then Agriculture Secretary Carlos G. Dominguez.
The petitioners questioned the omission of Mayor Bunye from the criminal indictment in the Ombudsman's resolution, which had dismissed the complaint against him on April 11, 1997.

Initially, the petitioners sought relief through an original petition for certiorari and mandamus before the Court of Appeals (CA) against the Ombudsman's resolution.
On September 9, 1997, the CA issued an order dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction based on Section 27 of RA 6770, applicable to administrative cases only.
A motion for reconsideration was likewise dismissed on September 1, 1997 by the CA, relying on precedents such as Yabut vs. Ombudsman, Alba vs. Nitorreda, and Angchangco vs. Ombudsman.
The petitioners filed an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 from the CA’s November 13, 1997 resolution, eventually leading to the present review.

The case involves a criminal matter arising from a graft and corruption charge rather than an administrative disciplinary proceeding.
The petitioners contended that the proper remedy should have been an original petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to the Supreme Court rather than a petition filed in the Court of Appeals.
It was further argued that the exclusion of Mayor Bunye from indictment was not justified given the nature of the evidence and allegations surrounding his role.

Application of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) as the underlying substantive law for the alleged criminal offense.
The take-over of KBMBPM management by virtue of an administrative order, which eventually formed part of the factual matrix leading to the criminal complaint.
Reference to Section 27 of RA 6770, which governs appeals in administrative disciplinary cases but was controversially invoked by the CA in a criminal context.

Whether the petitioners correctly availed themselves of the remedy by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 in the Court of Appeals as opposed to filing an original petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court.
Whether the proper remedy in a criminal case involving allegations of graft and corruption is indeed through the Supreme Court and not via the appellate process reserved for administrative cases.

Whether the Court of Appeals erringly applied Section 27 of RA 6770, given that this provision is intended for administrative disciplinary cases and not for criminal proceedings such as those involving graft and corruption.
Whether the reliance on this section as the basis for dismissing the petition for certiorari should preclude the proper jurisdictional review of the Ombudsman's resolution in a criminal context.

Whether there was any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman in dismissing the criminal complaint against Mayor Bunye.
Whether the alleged factual findings — including Mayor Bunye’s physical presence at the scene and his purported belief in the validity of Secretary Dominguez’s order — justify the exclusion from the criminal charge.