Antonino v. Desierto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Presidential Proclamation No. 168 reserved a parcel of land for recreational and health resort site purposes. Republic Act No. 5412, as amended, ceded ownership of public lands within General Santos City to the city. Presidential Proclamation No. 2273 excluded portions of the reserved land, making them open for disposition under the Public Land Act. Subsequently, the Heirs of Cabalo Kusop applied for Free Patent, leading to the issuance of Certificates of Title. Consolidated cases were filed concerning the nullity of titles and injunction. A Compromise Agreement was approved by the RTC, dividing the land between the Heirs of Kusop and the City. Later, the RTC issued an Order excluding Lot X from the Compromise Agreement, enjoining the Heirs of Kusop to donate it to the City. Subsequently, miscellaneous sales patent applications were filed for portions of Lot X, leading to its subdivision and the issuance of Original Certificates of Title (OCTs) to various applicants. These lots were then sold to AFP-Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS), with some lots being exchanged. Petitioner Luwalhati R. Antonino filed a complaint-affidavit before the Ombudsman against various public officials and private individuals for violation of R.A. No. 3019 and malversation. Procedural History: The Ombudsman dismissed the charges against former Mayor Rosalita T. Nuñez, Augustus L. Momongan, Judge Abednego O. Adre, Pedro G. Nalangan III, Asteria E. Cruzabra, Julio C. Diaz, and Agapito Borinaga, finding no probable cause. The Ombudsman later denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, stating it had lost jurisdiction as criminal Informations had already been filed. Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the Ombudsman's dismissal of charges. The Petition: Petitioner argues that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion by dismissing the charges despite evidence of conspiracy and illegal disposition of Lot X, violating R.A. No. 3019.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the charges against the respondents. Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy and illegal disposition of Lot X of Magsaysay Park. Whether the acts of the respondents violated R.A. No. 3019, specifically regarding conspiracy, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman in dismissing the charges. The Court also found the petition to be procedurally infirm due to a late filing of the motion for reconsideration. The Court reiterated that it will not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of investigatory and prosecutory powers absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged grave abuse of discretion: The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that it will not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of investigatory and prosecutory powers, as this power is granted by the Constitution and R.A. No. 6770. Such interference is only warranted in cases of grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The petitioner failed to prove that the Ombudsman's dismissal of the charges was arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or despotic. The Ombudsman's findings were based on the evidence on record, and the Court found no reason to deviate from the general rule. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner failed to establish that her Motion for Reconsideration was filed within the five-day reglementary period, rendering the assailed Resolution final and executory. On the alleged conspiracy: The Court found that the conspiracy alleged in the complaint was not supported by ample evidence. The evidence presented was not clear as to the respondents' participation in the questioned acts. The burden of proof rests with the complainant, and the petitioner failed to establish a common design among the respondents. The inherent weakness of the complainant's case was not a ground for the Ombudsman to conduct a preliminary investigation, and conspiracy cannot be presumed. The Court affirmed the Ombudsman's finding that there was no sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy among the respondents or that they acted with evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. On the elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and the actions of the respondents: The Court reiterated the elements of the offense, including the requirement that the act causing undue injury must be done with evident bad faith or gross inexcusable neglect. It clarified that bad faith requires a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity, not merely bad moral judgment or negligence. The Court found no evidence of such bad faith or gross negligence in the actions of the respondents. Good faith is presumed, and the petitioner failed to overcome this presumption. The acts of Judge Adre were found to be in accordance with the facts of the case and aimed at preserving the government's claim. The endorsements made by Mayor Nuñez and Nalangan were not considered a waiver of the city's claim. The actions of Diaz, Borinaga, Momongan, and Cruzabra were deemed to be in the regular performance of their official functions, relying on submitted documents and established procedures.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of investigatory and prosecutory powers absent a clear case of grave abuse of discretion. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is only proper when the Ombudsman's finding is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The burden of proof rests with the complainant to establish conspiracy and the commission of offenses, as conspiracy cannot be presumed.