A.C. NO. 5424 - ANTONIO B. BALTAZAR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. NORBIN P. DIMALANTA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly dismiss it. Respondent Need Not File Another Motion for Reinvestigation with the Ombudsman The IBP finds respondent liable for dishonesty and misrepresentation for leading the trial court to believe that he had filed with the Ombudsman a motion for reinvestigation of Criminal Case No. G-5132 when "there was never a pending motion." The IBP also points to respondent's manifestation in the hearing of 25 January 2001 that the Ombudsman denied his motion for reinvestigation on 29 April 1999 as further proof of respondent's misrepresentation because respondent prayed for reinvestigation only on 6 June 2000. We cannot sustain the IBP's findings. The Ombudsman Administrative Order No. 13-96 [13] ("AO 13-96"), dated 7 February 1996, provides the procedure for reinvestigation by the Ombudsman of cases pending with the courts, thus: A. REINVESTIGATION 1. All Petitions/Motions for Reinvestigation of cases already filed in court shall not be entertained and the same shall, instead, be addressed to the court trying the case . [14] 2. Where the trial court orders/directs the conduct of reinvestigation proceedings, the same shall be undertaken by the prosecutor assigned to prosecute the case in court and shall as far as practicable, be limited to the reception and evaluation of such evidence as the accused may deem fit to present for the purpose of overturning the finding of probable cause arrived at during the inquest or preliminary investigation proceedings ; without prejudice, however, to the right of the complainant/offended party to be notified of such proceedings and to submit, in appropriate cases, proof in contravention of the evidence adduced by the accused. (Emphasis supplied) Hence, all motions for reinvestigation must be addressed to the trial court where the case is pending. If the trial court grants reinvestigation, the Ombudsman shall proceed to receive such evidence as the parties may wish to submit to either support or controvert the prosecutor's finding of probable cause. To require the filing of another motion for reinvestigation with the Ombudsman, as the IBP seems to suggest, not only runs counter to AO 13-96 but also derogates on the trial court's exclusive prerogative to order reinvestigation. In the present case, the trial court, in its 20 June 2000 Order in Criminal Case No. G-5132, ordered the Ombudsman to "conduct a reinvestigation and to submit its report on the outcome of the reinvestigation within thirty (30) days' from notice. What the parties were supposed to do next was to submit, upon notice, additional evidence before the Ombudsman. As respondent well explained: [I]n the Order granting the motion for reinvestigation, [the trial court] stated the following: "The Court having found the motion to be meritorious hereby grants the same and allows the accused to seek reinvestigation and the Office of the Ombudsman to conduct a reinvestigation and to submit its report on the outcome of the reinvestigation within thirty (3