This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-06-21 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Here, petitioner's complaint is criminal in nature. In Estrada v. Desierto,[7] we held that the remedy of aggrieved parties from resolutions of the Office of the Ombudsman finding probable cause in criminal cases or non-administrative cases, when tainted with grave abuse of discretion, is to file an original action for certiorari with this Court, not with the Court of Appeals. In cases when the aggrieved party is questioning the Office of the Ombudsman's finding of lack of probable cause, as in this case, there is likewise the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 to be filed with this Court and not with the Court of Appeals. This rule was subsequently restated in Acuña v. Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon[8] where we held that the remedy of an aggrieved party in criminal complaints before the Ombudsman is to file with this Court a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. | |||||