Posted by: James L. Jalon on July 25, 2018
FACTS:
The office of Ombudsman by Ricardo Gonzaga (Ricardo) filed an administrative complaint with a prayer of preventive suspension against respondent Balzado for alleged falsification of a Deed of Donation in favor of Balzado as done.
The complaint alleged that Balzado was taking advantage of his position as Municipal Civil Registrar and falsified the said deed by making it appear that Teofista Lazaro Gonzaga (Teofista) Ricardo's wife and Balzado's aunt executed the the subject deed when in truth and in fact Teofista was already incapable of doing so. Ricardo further accused Balzado of falsifying the Death Certificate of Teofista by making it appear that the latter died in Bustos, Bulacan when in truth, she died at the Philippine General Hospital in Manila.
The RTC Ruled in favor of Ricardo on June 21, 2000, however, the CA Reversed such decision and set it aside.
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erroneously ruled when it reversed the decision dated June 21, 2000.
HELD: We find no merit in the petition.
It is readily noticeable form the lone error assigned by the petitioner that the present recourse raises factual issues which necessarily require this Court to revisit the evidence presented during the investigation process.
HELD: We find no merit in the petition.
It is readily noticeable form the lone error assigned by the petitioner that the present recourse raises factual issues which necessarily require this Court to revisit the evidence presented during the investigation process.
There is nothing more settled in this jurisdiction than the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts, and that only questions of law may be entertained by the petitions for review on Certiorari under Rule 45. Questions of fact are not reviewable (Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp Inc.) The question of whether there is sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that there was falsification of public documents in the instant case is definietely a factual issue which requires a review of the pieces of evidence presented by the parties. There is nothing on record before the Court to show that CA committed grave reversible error in its factual review of the Ombudsman decision. On this score alone the petition should be dismissed outright.
