Bariata v. Carpio-Morales
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint filed by Crispin Burgos D. Bariata against then Mayor Joselito A. Ojeda and his wife, Dulce R. Quinto-Ojeda. The complaint alleged that Mayor Ojeda failed to accurately declare his properties and net worth in his Sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) for the years 2010 to 2013. Specifically, the complainant pointed to several parcels of land, shareholdings in corporations, and various vehicles that were allegedly not included in the SALNs. Additionally, the complaint included charges of falsification of public documents and perjury, as well as unexplained wealth, in violation 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). Procedural History: The complaint was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman, which conducted an investigation. After reviewing the parties' submissions, including counter-affidavits and position papers, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution on October 19, 2015, dismissing both the criminal and administrative cases against Mayor Ojeda and his wife for lack of merit. The Ombudsman found that the complainant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the allegations. The petitioner subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the Ombudsman in a Joint Order dated July 3, 2017. Aggrieved by these rulings, the petitioner filed the present Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: The petitioner, Crispin Burgos D. Bariata, filed this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul and set aside the Joint Resolution and Joint Order of the Ombudsman. The petitioner argues that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal and administrative complaints against respondents Joselito A. Ojeda and Dulce R. Quinto-Ojeda. The petition specifically challenges the Ombudsman's findings regarding the non-declaration of certain properties, business interests, and vehicles in Mayor Ojeda's SALNs, as well as the dismissal of charges related to unexplained wealth and falsification.
Issue(s)
Whether the Petition for Certiorari is the proper remedy to assail the Ombudsman's Joint Resolution and Joint Order dismissing both the criminal and administrative charges. Whether respondent Joselito A. Ojeda failed to declare in his 2010-2013 SALNs properties and interests in violation of R.A. No. 3019 and R.A. No. 6713; and whether the non-declaration of properties subject to levy constitutes a violation. Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint against Joselito A. Ojeda, considering the allegations of non-declaration of properties and interests.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Certiorari. It held that while a Petition for Certiorari is the proper remedy to question the dismissal of criminal charges by the Ombudsman, it is not the proper remedy to question the dismissal of administrative charges when the penalty imposed is exoneration, as such decisions become final and unappealable. The Court found that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint against Joselito A. Ojeda.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Proper Remedy: The Court reiterated that a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to question the Ombudsman's finding of lack of probable cause in criminal cases. However, for administrative cases where the respondent is absolved, the decision is final and unappealable. Such decisions, if tainted with grave abuse of discretion, may be assailed via certiorari before the Court of Appeals, not directly with the Supreme Court. Therefore, the dismissal of the administrative charge against Joselito Ojeda had attained finality due to the petitioner availing of the wrong remedy. On the Declaration of Properties and Properties Subject to Levy: The Court found that while several properties were indeed registered in Joselito Ojeda's name, his non-declaration in his SALNs was justified in some instances. Specifically, properties covered by TCT Nos. T-57936, T-65839, T-84285, and T-82483, though levied upon, were not shown to have been sold on execution, thus ownership was not transferred. However, the Court noted that Joselito's continued payment of real property taxes indicated continued interest. Regarding TCT No. 115895, a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Belinda Seibold in 2005 constituted constructive delivery and transferred ownership, justifying its exclusion. For TCT No. 343418, Dulce Ojeda's waiver and quitclaim in favor of her brother Apolinar Quinto, akin to a donation, was deemed valid and transferred ownership, thus Joselito was justified in excluding it. The Court also found insufficient evidence that Joselito retained interests in Katigbak Enterprises after a Deed of Assignment in 2006, and no proof of ownership of the listed vehicles. The Court clarified that a levy on execution creates a lien but does not divest ownership unless followed by a sale and failure to redeem. Therefore, the properties covered by TCT Nos. T-57936, T-65839, T-84285, and T-82483 should have been declared. However, the Court found no malicious or deliberate intent to conceal "unexplained wealth" in their non-declaration. Joselito's omission stemmed from an incorrect interpretation of the legal effects of a levy on execution. Furthermore, these properties were acquired prior to his assumption of public office, negating the accumulation of "unexplained wealth" during his incumbency. The Court affirmed that Joselito was not required to declare his son's assets as the son was married and thus excluded from the definition of "unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households" under R.A. No. 6713. On the Ombudsman's Dismissal of Criminal Complaint: The Court concluded that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint. While some properties should have been declared, the lack of malicious intent to conceal unexplained wealth, coupled with the fact that the properties were acquired before Joselito became mayor, supported the Ombudsman's finding that there was no "unexplained wealth" acquired during his incumbency.
Main Doctrine
A mere levy on execution, without a subsequent sale and failure to redeem, does not divest the judgment debtor of ownership of the property, and thus, it must still be declared in the SALN. However, the non-declaration of properties subject to levy on execution, if done due to an incorrect interpretation of law and without malicious intent to conceal unexplained wealth, does not necessarily constitute a violation of anti-graft laws, especially if the properties were acquired prior to assuming public office.