Tirol v CA; GR No. 133854; 03 Aug 2000

FACTS:
Petitioner Victoriano Tirol, Jr. assailed the resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman which found petitioner and his co-accused criminally culpable for violation of Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, and the order of the same office denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the said resolution.

ISSUE(S):
Whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the case.

HELD:
NO. Only questions of law may be appealed to us by way of certiorari. This court is not ordinarily a trier of facts, its jurisdiction being limited to errors of law. There is no question of law in any given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. A question of fact arises when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts.

It is settled that this Court ordinarily does not interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman to determine whether there exists reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and thereafter, to file the corresponding information with the appropriate court.

Tags: , ,

Category: Legal Chyme

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *