G.R. Nos. 140619-24 - BENEDICTO E. KUIZON, JOSELITO RANIERO J. DAAN AND ROSALINA T. TOLIBAS, VS. HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN AND THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION).D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, the undersigned's memorandum was disapproved with the following marginal note: 'Prosecution of all the accused shall proceed as recommended by OCLC.'" [39] Thereafter, the Sandiganbayan set the criminal cases for hearing on August 16, 18 to 20, 1999. Petitioner Daan filed with the Sandiganbayan an Urgent Motion for Reinvestigation and to Defer Arraignment [40] dated August 12, 1999. In an Order dated August 16, 1999, the motion was denied by the Sandiganbayan. [41] Petitioners were arraigned on the same date and they all pleaded "not guilty" to the crimes charged. [42] The pre-trial and the trial on the merits were then set upon agreement of the parties. On September 6, 1999, petitioners filed a petition before the Court of Appeals captioned "Benedicto E. Kuizon, et al. vs. Hon. Aniano A. Desierto, et al." and docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 54898, assailing the approval by the respondent Aniano A. Desierto of the Memorandum of his Legal Counsel which recommended the continued prosecution of the petitioners. The Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order in a Resolution dated September 17, 1999. On even date, petitioners filed a Motion for Suspension of Proceedings and/or Postponement with the Sandiganbayan. On October 19, 1999, the Court of Appeals promulgated a Resolution [43] which states: "Per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Teresita G. Fabian vs. Aniano A. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998, the jurisdiction of this Court extends only to decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases. The cases involved in the instant petition are criminal cases. WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DENIED DUE COURSE and accordingly DISMISSED, for lack of jurisdiction." [44] On November 4, 1999, petitioners filed the instant petition based on the following grounds: A. The Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it deprived herein petitioners of the opportunity to file motions for reconsideration of the resolutions of the Office of Ombudsman-Visayas (Annexes "G" and "M" hereof); [45] B. The Honorable Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when he approved the Memorandum of Legal Counsel Paul Elmer M. Clemente (Annex "C", Manifestation of Special Prosecution Officer Lemuel De Guzman) despite the fact that no reinvestigation was conducted with respect to herein petitioners Joselito Raniero J. Daan and Rosalina T. Tolibas; [46] C. The Honorable Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when he approved the Memorandum of Legal Counsel Paul Elmer M. Clemente (Annex "C", Manifestation of Special (sic) Prosecution Lemuel De Guzman to the Sandiganbayan) reinstating the prosecution of the criminal cases as against petitioner Benedicto Kuizon; [47] and D. The Honorable Sandiganbayan, with due respect, also committed grave abuse