JUSTICE MARTIN VILLARAMA, JR.: A RE-EXAMINATION OF FACTUAL FINDINGS CANNOT BE DONE THROUGH A PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 45 OF THE RULES OF COURT

It is aphoristic that a re-examination of factual findings cannot be done through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court because this Court is not a trier of facts; it reviews only questions of law. The Supreme Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below. (Id. at 460-461.)

Now, superior courts are not triers of facts. When the findings of fact of the Ombudsman are supported by substantial evidence, it should be considered as conclusive.( Olivarez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 118533, October 4, 1995, 248 SCRA 700, 715). This Court recognizes the expertise and independence of the Ombudsman and will avoid interfering with its findings absent a finding of grave abuse of discretion.( See Jao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 104604 & 111223, October 6, 1995, 249 SCRA 35, 42 and Yabut v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 111304, June 17, 1994, 233 SCRA 310, 314.) Hence, being supported by substantial evidence, we find no reason to disturb the factual findings of the Ombudsman which are affirmed by the CA.

The general rule is that factual findings of the CA are not reviewable by this Court, we find that Olaivar’s case falls in one of the recognized exceptions laid down in jurisprudence since the CA’s findings regarding his liability are premised on the supposed absence of evidence but contradicted by the evidence on record.( See Hyatt Elevators and Escalators Corporation v. Cathedral Heights Building Complex Association, Inc., G.R. No. 173881, December 1, 2010, 636 SCRA 401, 405-406.) (Gemma P. Cabalit vs. Commission on Audit-Region VII, G.R. No. 180236, Filadelfo S. Apit vs. Commission on  Audit (COA) Legal and Adjudication, Region VII, G.R. No. 180341; Leonardo G. Olaivar vs. HON. Primo C. Miro et al., G.R. No. 180342, January 17, 2012, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).