CITY GOVERNMENT OF TUGUEGARAO, REPRESENTED BY ROBERT P. GUZMAN, PETITIONER, VS. RANDOLPH S. TING, RESPONDENT.

Tuguegarao City versus Ting

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the City Government of Tuguegarao, represented by Robert P. Guzman, against Randolph S. Ting, the former City Mayor of Tuguegarao. The City Government asks the Supreme Court to reverse the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan which granted the prosecution's motion to withdraw the informations and dismissed the criminal cases for violation of Section 3(g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The case matters because it settles who may come to the Supreme Court to challenge a dismissal by the Sandiganbayan, and it draws the line between the Ombudsman's power to prosecute and the Sandiganbayan's control of a case once it is filed.

Procedural History

The Office of the Ombudsman issued a resolution in June 2008 finding probable cause to charge the respondent, then Mayor of Tuguegarao City, with violation of Section 3(g) of Republic Act Number 3019 in connection with the purchase of three parcels of land in 2004. Two informations were filed in the Sandiganbayan in January 2009. Before arraignment, the respondent filed a motion for reinvestigation. The Special Prosecutor asked that the motion be treated instead as a motion for reconsideration. The Sandiganbayan, in a resolution dated May 26, 2009, directed the prosecution to resolve the motion, treated as a motion for reconsideration.

The Ombudsman then reversed her earlier ruling in a resolution dated September 8, 2009, finding no probable cause. The Office of the Special Prosecutor moved to withdraw the informations. The petitioner filed his opposition. On December 9, 2009, the Sandiganbayan granted the motion, ordered the informations withdrawn, and dismissed the cases. The petitioner learned of the dismissal during the campaign for the May 2010 elections, secured a certified copy in June 2010, and filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 on June 18, 2010.

Facts

In 2004, the City Government of Tuguegarao purchased three parcels of land under two separate deeds of sale, intending to use them to expand the public cemetery. The lots lie near the existing public cemetery and traverse Barangays Atulayan Sur and Penque. The respondent was then the City Mayor.

Robert P. Guzman filed a complaint-affidavit alleging that the purchase was anomalous. He claimed there was no project study on the suitability of the properties, no Environmental Compliance Certificate from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and no initial clearance from the Department of Health as required by the Sanitation Code. He alleged the transaction was grossly disadvantageous because the area is flood-prone and lies along a waterway, and because the price was way above the fair market value reflected in the appraisal of a private firm, Cuervo Appraisers, Incorporated.

The respondent answered that the transaction was duly authorized by the Sangguniang Panlungsod and that its terms were above-board. He explained that the City Appraisal Committee studied the offer and recommended a negotiated price of 351 pesos and 54 centavos per square meter as the just and reasonable market value, based on deeds of sale and sworn statements of property owners. He said the clearances would be secured when the cemetery is actually constructed, and that the flooding was brief and had been addressed by requiring backfilling. The Ombudsman initially found probable cause, noting that the respondent failed to attach the deeds of sale and sworn statements relied upon by the committee. After reinvestigation, however, the Ombudsman found that the respondent had submitted those documents, that the committee's recommendation had basis, and that the reports of the environmental and health agencies showed the site could be developed as a cemetery with proper mitigating measures. The Sandiganbayan then granted the withdrawal of the informations and dismissed the cases.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner, Robert P. Guzman, has the legal personality to challenge before the Supreme Court the dismissal by the Sandiganbayan of the criminal cases against the respondent.
• Whether or not the dismissal had already become final and executory for failure of the Special Prosecutor to appeal within the reglementary period.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3(g) of Republic Act Number 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, provides:

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.

This is the offense charged, and its element of a transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government is what the Ombudsman found doubtful on reinvestigation.

Section 4(c) of Presidential Decree Number 1606, as amended, provides:

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 1986.

This fixes who represents the People before the Sandiganbayan and before the Supreme Court, and it is the basis for denying the petitioner's personality.

Section 1, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

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 word party in this rule means the original party in the main case aggrieved by the order or decision, which the petitioner was not.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioner is not the proper party to file the present action. The Office of the Ombudsman has the sole power to investigate and prosecute, and the power to withdraw an information already filed is a mere adjunct of that power. But once the case is filed in the Sandiganbayan, it is that court, and no longer the Ombudsman, which has full control of the case, so the information may not be dismissed without the court's approval. Here the Sandiganbayan gave its approval, and the Special Prosecutor took no appeal.

On the second issue, the Court held that since no appeal was taken by the Special Prosecutor from the order of dismissal within the reglementary period, the dismissal had become final and executory under Section 7 of Presidential Decree Number 1606, as amended. But even setting timeliness aside, the Court held that the petitioner lacked legal personality. Under Section 4(c) of the same decree, it is the Office of the Ombudsman, through its special prosecutor, that represents the People in cases elevated from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court. A private complainant in a criminal case before the Sandiganbayan may appeal only the civil aspect after dismissal. While the petitioner's name appeared in the caption during the preliminary investigation, he was not the offended party in the main case; as the informations show, it is the City of Tuguegarao that suffered damage and is the private complainant. The Court quoted its earlier ruling that the party referred to in Rule 45 is the original party in the main case aggrieved by the order, and one who has not been an original party has no personality to file the petition.

Doctrine

First, the Ombudsman has the sole power to investigate and prosecute, and the power to withdraw an information is an adjunct of that power. Second, once the information is filed in the Sandiganbayan, that court has full control of the case, and the information may not be dismissed without its approval. Third, under Section 4(c) of Presidential Decree Number 1606, as amended, the Office of the Ombudsman through its special prosecutor represents the People in cases elevated from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court. Fourth, a private complainant may appeal only the civil aspect of a criminal case after its dismissal, and only the original party in the main case aggrieved by the order is the proper party under Section 1, Rule 45.

Disposition

The petition for review on certiorari was denied, with costs against the petitioner Robert P. Guzman, so the dismissal of the criminal cases against the respondent stands.

Remember This

Memorize this line: once the information is filed, the Sandiganbayan, not the Ombudsman, has full control of the case, and only the Ombudsman through the special prosecutor may represent the People on appeal. Examiners use this case on the proper party under Rule 45 and on the limits of a private complainant's personality before the Sandiganbayan.