FIRST DIVISION
|
CITY GOVERNMENT OF TUGUEGARAO, represented by ROBERT
P. GUZMAN, Petitioner,
-
versus - |
G.R. Nos. 192435-36 Present: Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA,
JR., JJ. |
|
Respondent. |
Promulgated: September 14, 2011 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which
seeks to reverse and set aside the Resolutions[1]
dated May 26, 2009 and December 9, 2009 of the Sandiganbayan (First Division)
in SB-09-CRM-0004 to 0005. The
Sandiganbayan directed the Ombudsman to resolve respondents motion for
reinvestigation which was treated as a motion for reconsideration of the
Ombudsmans resolution finding probable cause against the respondent. Subsequently, the Special Prosecutor filed a
motion for withdrawal of informations which the Sandiganbayan granted.
On June 12, 2008, the Office of the
Ombudsman issued a resolution[2]
finding probable cause to charge respondent Randolph S. Ting, then Mayor of
Tuguegarao City, with violation of Section 3(g)[3]
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act) in connection with the purchase of three (3) parcels
of land in the year 2004 under two separate deeds of sale. The City Government
intended to use the properties as a public cemetery as these are situated near
the existing public cemetery and traverse Barangays Atulayan Sur and Penque.
In his complaint-affidavit,[4]
petitioner Robert P. Guzman alleged that the purchase of the subject lots was
anomalous because it was done despite the lack of a project study on the
suitability of the properties for their intended purpose, an Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), and initial clearance from the Department of Health (DOH) as
required by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 856 (Sanitation Code). Petitioner pointed out that the transaction
was grossly disadvantageous to the city government considering that the area is
flood-prone and the subject properties are situated along a waterway/floodway
which are inundated during the rainy season. The purchased contiguous lots also
adjoin a creek and a road where box culverts were constructed, and are lower
than the elevation of the road.
Petitioner further claimed that respondent entered into the sale
transaction knowing fully well that the purchase price was way above the
properties fair market value, as reflected in the fair market value appraisal
of Cuervo Appraisers, Inc. (Cuervo Report).
Respondent filed his counter-affidavit[5]
asserting that the subject transaction was duly authorized by the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of P700 per square meter to the City Government, the
City Appraisal Committee conducted an evaluation of the proposed acquisition of
properties for the Tuguegarao City public cemetery expansion project which was
included in the 2001-2005 City Comprehensive Development Plan/Comprehensive
Land Use Plan (CCDP/CLUP) adopted by the Sanngguniang Panlungsod. Said
committee, after a thorough study, recommended that the City Government
negotiate for the price of P351.54 per square meter which it found as
the just and reasonable market value of the offered properties as the average
amount in the deeds of sale and sworn statements of property owners. As for the
clearances from DOH and DENR, respondent thought that these requirements shall
be secured at the time the intended cemetery will be constructed. Respondent also explained that flooding
occurs only when there is an unusually large volume of rainfall in the Cagayan
Valley Region and for a short period. Moreover,
the various resolutions passed by the City Development Council (CDC) already
factored in such possibility when it required the backfilling of the acquired
area. As to the price of P160 per
square meter indicated in the Cuervo Report, this runs counter to the findings
of the City Appraisal Committee also based on deeds of sale and sworn
statements of lot owners.
As already mentioned, the Ombudsman approved the
recommendation of Graft Investigation & Prosecution Officer I Albert S.
Almojuela to indict the respondent for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. No.
3019. It was noted that respondent failed to attach copies of the deeds of sale
and sworn statements supposedly used as basis for the resolution of the City
Appraisal Committee recommending the price per square meter of the properties
for acquisition as their fair market value.[6]
Consequently, on
Except for the names of the lot owners-sellers and specific
properties subject of sale, the two (2) informations contain identical
allegations, as follows:
That on or about May 05, 2004 or
sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Tuguegarao, Cagayan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused Randy (Randolph) S. Ting, a public officer, being then the
City Mayor of Tuguegarao, Province of Cagayan, while in the performance of his
official functions, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
purchase/enter into a Contract of Sale of two (2) parcels of land with a total
area of
CONTRARY TO LAW.[8]
Prior to his arraignment,[9]
respondent filed on March 3, P351.54 per sq. m. Hence,
the City Appraisal Committee should have been subpoenaed to produce those
bunched deeds of sale and sworn statements (photocopies of which were attached
to the motion) in its possession, which were used in the evaluation of the
offered price for the subject lots, and for which the said body spent
considerable time in determining the fair market value of the properties
offered. Respondent stressed that the Sangguniang
Panlungsod adopted the committees
findings and authorized the respondent to enter into a contract of sale with
the property owners at such price. It
was noted that the Ombudsman based its findings mainly on the Cuervo Report
which contained errors and inaccuracies such as the acquisition cost by the
property owners, ground elevation of fronting roads and zonal valuation figures.
Respondent
further emphasized the fact that petitioner himself is engaged in the cemetery
business being the President of Tuguegarao Memorial, Inc. located near the
subject properties as well as the old and overloaded public cemetery. Copies
of five (5) contracts to sell involving petitioners burial lots were submitted
by the respondent indicating the much higher selling price of petitioners
burial lots compared with the fair market value of the acquired
properties. Respondent claimed that
petitioner knew such expansion and development of the public cemetery would
bring serious competition for the sales of burial lots in petitioners private
cemetery. Finally, respondent called attention to his election as City Mayor of
Tuguegarao for three consecutive terms, and the various government awards he
received as community leader and for the City Government, that would attest to
his integrity and honesty in governance.
The Special Prosecutor, on behalf of the People of the
On
By
Resolution[13]
dated
Accused, however, was able to
submit documents which served as basis for the amount arrived at by the City
Appraisal Committee. In his Motion for
Reinvestigation, accused submitted deeds of sale and tax declarations over
properties in Barangay Atulayan Sur showing that some lots were sold for as
much as P520 per sq. m. in the years 2002 to 2003. Accused also submitted another set of deeds
of sale and tax declarations showing that in Barangay Penque, the average
selling price of lots is P647.80 for the years 2002 to 2004. It would appear, therefore, that the City
Appraisal Committee, relied on by [the] accused, had some basis in arriving at
its recommendation.
The actions of the City Appraisal
Committee, in the absence of any evidence of some illegality in its
proceedings, should be accorded the presumption of regularity. Their official findings and recommendations,
based as they are on actual data, should prevail over the findings of a private
appraisal firm which was hired by [the] complainant. This private appraiser apparently used the
so-called Stripping Method and the Anticipated Development Approach when it
arrived at the price of P160.00 per sq. m.
When it came, however, to the Market Data Approach, the appraisal
report stated that the buying and selling price of the lots within the vicinity
was P800-P1000 per sq. m. as gathered from local bank appraisers (Allied Bank
and Chinabank). In the final analysis,
it would appear that the City Appraisal Committees recommendation is more
realistic, being based on actual data and official records while that of the
private appraiser using the Stripping Method and Anticipated Development
Approach is more of a theory or an opinion.
Moreover, while the area did, at
some time, experience some flooding, any doubts as to the propriety of putting
up a cemetery thereon has been laid to rest by the findings of the Regional
Offices of the Environmental Management Bureau and the Mines Geo Sciences
Bureau of DENR. The Mines and
Geosciences Bureau, Region 2 Office reported that the proposed site can be
developed as a cemetery or memorial park, provided, that proper mitigating
measures like a well-designed drainage system and proper foundation designs
shall be incorporated in the development plan of the project. The Environmental Management Bureau, for its
part, stated that the project does not require an Environmental Compliance Certificate
under PD 1586 but echoed the need to put up mitigating measures.
Other regulatory agencies of the
government also gave approval to the project such as the Regional Office of the
Center for Health of the DOH who gave INITIAL CLEARANCE to the project on
The Ombudsman thus concluded that the
existence of the element of a contract or transaction being grossly and
manifestly disadvantageous to the government had become doubtful since the
buying price of the subject lots falls within the prevailing fair market value
of the properties within the area. It was
also noted that there was no evidence of a better offer received by the City
Government of Tuguegarao in terms of price, size and location that also meets
its requirements. Moreover, since the
lots purchased have been shown to be suitable for use as a public cemetery by
the DENR, it cannot be said that the transaction entered into by respondent is
grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government.
On
Petitioner
filed his Opposition[16]
reiterating his arguments that the newly submitted evidence on the buying and
selling price of lots in the area have no relevance while there is no
comparison between lots in a fully developed memorial park and an undeveloped
flood-prone land which forms part of a waterway. As to the DENR reports, petitioner pointed
out that it was clearly indicated that the properties are located in a
flood-prone area and require backfilling as certified by DENR officials. Also,
the City Appraisal Committee certified only as to the fair market value of the
properties without the backfilling cost. There was also non-compliance with
public hearing requirement on re-zoning as affected residents in the vicinity
have objected to the construction of a new public cemetery on the subject lots.
On
WHEREFORE, the instant Motion to
Withdraw Informations is hereby GRANTED.
The Informations against accused Randolph S. Ting are hereby ordered
WITHDRAWN and the instant cases are hereby ordered DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.[17]
Petitioner claims that he learned of
the dismissal of the cases against the respondent during the campaign for the
Petitioner argues that the Sandiganbayan departed from the
accepted usual and prescribed course of judicial proceedings as to call for an
exercise of the power of supervision when it:
1. Acted upon the motion for reinvestigation by
the accused and considered the same as a motion for reconsideration of the
resolution of the ombudsman when the said resolution has already become final
and the accused has been arraigned at the honorable Sandiganbayan and has
pleaded not guilty.
2. Dismissed prior to pre-trial the informations
merely based on the Motion of the Ombudsman without a complete finding and/or
discussion of all the issues raised in the pleadings in clear violation of Sec.
7 of P.D. 1486 creating the Sandiganbayan and totally ignoring the oppositions
of the private complainant Guzman.
3. Merely noted to appearance of the private
complainant and totally ignored the pleadings filed by said private complainant
Guzman.[18]
In his Comment,[19]
respondent contends that petitioner raised the correctness of the finding of
absence of probable cause, a question of fact which is not proper in a Rule
45 petition. Moreover, the petition is time-barred. Respondent points out that the Special
Prosecutor did not file an appeal from the December 9, 2009 resolution of the
Sandiganbayan within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof; and
necessarily so, because it was at their instance that the informations were
withdrawn and pursuant thereto, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the criminal cases
against the respondent. In any case,
the petitioner cannot represent
We
deny the petition.
The
crucial issue in this case concerns the petitioners legal personality to challenge
before this Court the dismissal by the Sandiganbayan of the criminal cases
against the respondent.
It
is settled that the Office of the Ombudsman has the sole power to investigate
and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of
any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. The power to withdraw
the Information already filed is a mere adjunct or consequence of the
Ombudsmans overall power to prosecute.[20]
However, while it is the
Ombudsman who has the full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal
case should be filed in the Sandiganbayan, once the case has been filed with
said court, it is the Sandiganbayan, and no longer the Ombudsman, which has
full control of the case so much so that the Information may not be dismissed
without the approval of said court.[21] Further, it does not matter whether such
filing of a motion to dismiss by the prosecution is done before or after the
arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after a
reinvestigation.[22]
In
this case, the Sandiganbayan, ordered the Special Prosecutor to conduct a
reinvestigation and subsequently granted his motion to withdraw the
informations, after finding no probable cause against the latter on
reinvestigation. The Sandiganbayan thus gave
its approval to the withdrawal of the informations and ordered the dismissal of
the cases. Since no appeal was taken by
the Special Prosecutor from the order of dismissal within the reglementary
period, the same had become final and executory pursuant to Section 7,
paragraph 2[23]
of P.D. No. 1606,[24]
as amended by R.A. No. 8249[25].
But
disregarding for the moment the question of timeliness, does petitioner have
the legal personality to prosecute this appeal from the Sandiganbayans
dismissal of the criminal cases?
We
hold that petitioner is not the proper party to file the present action. Section 4 (c) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended,
clearly provides that In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the
Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman, through its
special prosecutor, shall represent the People of the Philippines, except in
cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in
A
private complainant in a criminal case before the Sandiganbayan is allowed to
appeal only the civil aspect of the criminal case after its dismissal by said
court. While petitioners name was
included in the caption of the cases as private complainant during the
preliminary investigation and re-investigation proceedings in the Office of the
Ombudsman, he is not the offended party or private complainant in the main
case. As evident from a reading of the
informations, it is the City of
As
this Court declared in People v. Velez:[26]
On the first issue, the Court
agrees with the contention of the respondent Office of the Ombudsman that
Salmingo is not the proper party as petitioner in this case. The governing rule is Section 1, Rule 45 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which reads:
SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court.
-- A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final
order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional
Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the
Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition
shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.
The Court has previously held that
the party referred to in the rule is
the original party in the main case aggrieved by the order or decision in the
main case. Hence, only the aggrieved
original party in the main case is the only proper party as petitioner. One who has not been an original party in the
main case has no personality to file a petition under said rule.
x x x x
The Court notes that Salmingo was not a party in the main case. While it is true that he initiated the
criminal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against respondents for
various offenses, however, under the Information filed with the SB, the parties
are the People of the
The private complainant in a
criminal case before the SB is also a proper party to file a petition under
Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, but only on the civil
aspect of the case. It must be noted
that Salmingo was not the private complainant in the main case. As
gleaned from the Information,
Salmingos inclusion in the
caption of his petition of the People of the
In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds it unnecessary to discuss
other matters raised in the petition.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on
certiorari is DENIED.
With
costs against petitioner Robert P. Guzman.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR: RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
|
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Courts Division.
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice |
|
[1] Rollo, p. 392, 554-556. The Resolution dated December 9, 2009 was
penned by Associate Justice Norberto Y. Geraldez with Associate Justices
Rodolfo A. Ponferrada and Napoleon E. Inoturan concurring.
[2]
[3] SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
x x x x
(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.
x x x x
[4] Rollo, pp. 35-38.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] SB records (Vol. I), pp. 337-338.
[10]
[11]
[12] Supra note 1 at 392.
[13] SB records (Vol. I), pp. 401-409.
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] Rollo,
p. 555.
[18]
[19]
[20] Espinosa
v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 135775, October 19, 2000, 343 SCRA
744, 751-752, citing Sec. 15(1), The Ombudsman
Act of 1989 (R.A. No. 6770).
[21] Nava
v. National Bureau of Investigation, Regional Office No. XI, Davao City, G.R.
No. 134509, April 12, 2005, 455 SCRA 377, 394; Espinosa v. Office of the Ombudsman, id., citing Dungog v. Court of Appeals, Nos.
L-77850-51,
[22] See Crespo
v. Mogul, No. L-53373,
[23] SECTION 7. Form,
Finality and Enforcement of Decisions. x x x
A
petition for reconsideration of any final order or decision may be filed within
fifteen (15) days from promulgation or notice of the final order or judgment,
and such motion for reconsideration shall be decided within thirty (30) days
from submission thereon.
x
x x x
[24] Entitled Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486 Creating
[25] Entitled An Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, amending for the purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended, Providing Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes.
[26] G.R. No. 138093,
[27]