Francisco v. Desierto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ernesto Francisco, Jr. filed a complaint-affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman alleging that various respondents, including former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada and others, committed offenses such as plunder and violations of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees). The core of the complaint revolves around the government's acquisition of several parcels of land from AMVEL Land Corporation for the right-of-way of the C-5 Link of the Manila-Cavite Toll Expressway Project (MCTE Project). Petitioner alleged that these lands were outrageously overpriced, leading to undue injury to the government and unwarranted benefits to private parties. The dispute also touches upon the circumstances surrounding the Toll Operation Agreement (TOA) for the MCTE Project, the subsequent negotiations for land acquisition, and the alleged irregularities in the appraisal and payment processes. Procedural History: The petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman on April 16, 2001. After an investigation, the Ombudsman issued a Resolution on November 16, 2001, dismissing the case for lack of evidence. The petitioner subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the Ombudsman in an Order dated June 24, 2002. Aggrieved by these decisions, the petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure before the Supreme Court. The Petition: The petitioner seeks review and reversal of the Ombudsman's Resolution and Order, arguing that the Ombudsman committed serious errors of law and grave abuse of discretion. Specifically, the petitioner contends that the Ombudsman erred in ruling that Administrative Order No. 50 was inapplicable to the transaction, that the respondents complied with prescribed procedures for valuation, and that the government was not defrauded. The petition raises issues concerning alleged overpricing of the AMVEL lands, the validity of the transaction given the timing relative to Administrative Order No. 50, the alleged falsification of a Court of Appeals decision, the change in the project's alignment, the alleged amassing of wealth by respondents, and the failure of the Ombudsman to conduct further fact-finding investigations and issue subpoenas. The petitioner argues that the Ombudsman disregarded evidence presented and took respondents' arguments at face value, leading to an unjust dismissal of the complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition should be dismissed for using the wrong mode of appeal (Rule 45 instead of Rule 65) and for raising questions of fact. Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed serious errors of law and grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in dismissing the complaint for plunder and graft and corruption. Whether Administrative Order No. 50, s. 1999, was applicable to the sale of the subject properties. Whether the respondents complied with the prescribed procedure in determining a fair and reasonable valuation of the properties. Whether the purchase price of the properties was bloated, causing undue injury to the government. Whether the change in the alignment of the Sucat Interchange increased the affected land area of AMVEL to the government's detriment. Whether respondent Mariano "Bro. Mike" Velarde made an undue profit from the transaction. Whether a portion of the subject properties sold to the government lacked a clean title. Whether the cost of the road-right-of-way was bloated, depleting loan proceeds. Whether respondents de-prioritized the R-1 Expressway Extension over the C-5 Link Expressway.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Resolution and Order of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Court held that the petition was filed under the wrong mode of appeal (Rule 45 instead of Rule 65 for grave abuse of discretion) and raised factual issues not proper for a Rule 45 petition. Nevertheless, the Court opted to resolve the substantive issues, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman. The Court concluded that the petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to establish the elements of plunder and graft and corruption, and that the Ombudsman's dismissal of the case was supported by substantial evidence and did not constitute grave abuse of discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the mode of appeal and the raising of factual issues: The Court held that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is not the proper remedy for assailing resolutions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases; a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the appropriate remedy when alleging grave abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the petition raised factual issues, such as whether the properties were overpriced, whether Administrative Order No. 50 was applicable, and whether titles were clean, which are generally not reviewable under Rule 45. Despite these procedural infirmities, the Court opted to resolve the case on its merits due to its transcendental importance. On whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed serious errors of law and grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman conducted a thorough review of the evidence presented by both parties and found it insufficient to establish probable cause for plunder and graft and corruption. The Court reiterated its policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman's findings unless tainted with grave abuse of discretion, emphasizing that the Ombudsman is constitutionally mandated to investigate and prosecute public officials. On the applicability of Administrative Order No. 50: The Court agreed with the Ombudsman and respondents that Administrative Order No. 50, issued on February 17, 1999, was not applicable to the transaction because the contract for the purchase of AMVEL properties was perfected as early as May 1998, during the administration of President Fidel V. Ramos. The governing law at the time of perfection was Executive Order No. 132. The Court noted that the execution of Deeds of Sale later did not affect the perfected contract. On compliance with prescribed procedures for valuation: The Court found that the respondents substantially complied with the prescribed procedures for determining a fair and reasonable valuation. The referral to the Parañaque City Appraisal Committee (PCAC) for appraisal, followed by further appraisals by independent companies, and the subsequent averaging of these appraisals to arrive at a purchase price of P15,355.00 per sq. m., was deemed a prudent exercise to protect the government's interest. This price was also found to be lower than the PCAC's initial recommendation and the BIR zonal valuation for commercial lands. On whether the purchase price was bloated and caused undue injury: The Court found no evidence that the government suffered undue injury. The petitioner's reliance on the BIR zonal valuation for residential lands was misplaced, as the AMVEL properties were classified as commercial zones. The final purchase price was considered fair and reasonable, and in fact, lower than the initial appraisal and the prevailing market values for comparable properties. The Court also noted that AMVEL, being in the real estate business, was expected to seek a profitable return on its investment. On the change in alignment and increased land area: The Court found no evidence that the change in alignment was done to defraud the government or that it resulted in an undue increase in the land area sold to the government. The re-alignment was a result of negotiations and was intended to optimize the use of the property and the project. The reduction in the affected area from 12 hectares to 7.9 hectares was also noted. On respondent Mariano "Bro. Mike" Velarde's profit: The Court found no evidence that respondent Velarde made an undue profit or that his closeness to the President unduly influenced the transaction. The purchase price was determined through a process of appraisal and negotiation, and the final price was considered reasonable and even lower than initial recommendations. On the issue of clean titles: The Court noted that while there were initial issues regarding titles, the subsequent Memorandum of Agreement between contending parties and the Court of Appeals' decision rendered this issue moot and academic. Furthermore, respondents asserted that all titles were cleared before full payment was made. On bloated cost of right-of-way and depletion of loan proceeds: The Court found the allegation of bloated costs and depletion of loan proceeds to be vague and without factual basis. The loan proceeds were not a factor in determining the fair market value of the properties, and the acquisition price was determined based on appraisals and negotiations. On de-prioritization of expressways: The Court found no evidence that respondents de-prioritized the C-5 Link Expressway in favor of the R-1 Expressway Extension to the government's detriment. The alleged approval of the takeover by Coastal Road Corporation was also unsubstantiated, and a related complaint on this matter had already been dismissed by the Ombudsman.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint by the Office of the Ombudsman for lack of evidence, holding that the petitioner failed to establish the elements of plunder and graft and corruption, and that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in its findings. The Court reiterated that it is not a trier of facts and will not interfere with the Ombudsman's determination of probable cause unless tainted with grave abuse of discretion.