City Government of Tuguegarao vs. Ting

A private complainant who is not the offended party in the criminal information lacks the legal personality to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to challenge the dismissal of the criminal aspect of a case.

Randolph S. Ting, then Mayor of Tuguegarao City, was charged with violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 in connection with the purchase of three parcels of land intended for use as a public cemetery. Petitioner Robert P. Guzman filed a complaint-affidavit alleging the purchase was anomalous, overpriced, and grossly disadvantageous to the government due to the land being flood-prone and lacking necessary clearances. Respondent countered that the purchase was duly authorized by the Sangguniang Panlungsod, priced based on the City Appraisal Committee's evaluation of prevailing market values, and suitable based on subsequent DENR and DOH clearances.

• The Complaint: Petitioner Robert P. Guzman filed a complaint-affidavit charging respondent Mayor Randolph S. Ting with violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 in connection with the City Government's purchase of three parcels of land for a public cemetery. Petitioner alleged the transaction was grossly disadvantageous because the properties were flood-prone, situated along a waterway, and lower than the road elevation. Petitioner further claimed the purchase price was way above the fair market value as reflected in the Cuervo Appraisers, Inc. Report, and that the purchase proceeded without a project study, an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), and initial clearance from the Department of Health (DOH).
• The Defense: Respondent asserted that the transaction was duly authorized by the Sangguniang Panlungsod and was above-board. The City Appraisal Committee recommended the negotiated price of ₱351.54 per square meter based on deeds of sale and sworn statements of property owners in the vicinity. Respondent contended that flooding was intermittent and mitigated by required backfilling, and that DOH and DENR clearances were to be secured at the time of construction.
• The Reinvestigation: Initially, the Ombudsman found probable cause and filed two informations in the Sandiganbayan. Upon reinvestigation, however, the Ombudsman reversed this finding. The Ombudsman gave weight to the presumption of regularity in the City Appraisal Committee's proceedings, noting its findings were based on actual data and official records, whereas the Cuervo Report relied on theoretical appraisal methods. The Ombudsman also noted that the DENR and DOH subsequently issued clearances or favorable findings regarding the suitability of the site, subject to mitigating measures.
• The Dismissal: Based on the Ombudsman's reversal, the Special Prosecutor moved to withdraw the informations. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion and dismissed the cases.

• Improper Consideration of Motion: Petitioner argued that the Sandiganbayan departed from the usual course of proceedings by treating the motion for reinvestigation as a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman's resolution, which had already become final, and by acting upon it after the accused had pleaded not guilty.
• Premature Dismissal: Petitioner maintained that the Sandiganbayan dismissed the informations merely based on the Ombudsman's motion without a complete finding or discussion of all issues raised, in violation of Sec. 7 of P.D. No. 1486, and totally ignored the private complainant's oppositions.
• Ignored Pleadings: Petitioner contended that the Sandiganbayan merely noted his appearance as private complainant and totally ignored the pleadings he filed.

• Question of Fact: Respondent countered that petitioner raised the correctness of the finding of absence of probable cause, a question of fact improper in a Rule 45 petition.
• Time-Barred: Respondent argued that the petition is time-barred because the Special Prosecutor did not appeal the Sandiganbayan's dismissal within the reglementary period, and the dismissal had thus become final and executory.
• Lack of Legal Personality: Respondent contended that petitioner is not a proper party and lacks locus standi to bring a derivative suit in representation of Tuguegarao City, as the Office of the Ombudsman holds the sole power to represent the People of the Philippines.

• Legal Personality: Whether the petitioner, as a private complainant in the preliminary investigation but not the offended party in the information, has the legal personality to challenge the dismissal of the criminal cases via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.

• Legal Personality: Legal personality was lacking, and the petition was denied. Only the aggrieved original party in the main case—the offended party named in the information—has standing to file a petition under Rule 45. Because the information identified the City of Tuguegarao, not petitioner Guzman, as the party that suffered damage, Guzman is not the private complainant in the main case. A private complainant in a criminal case before the Sandiganbayan is allowed to appeal only the civil aspect of the dismissal. Furthermore, under Section 4(c) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, the Office of the Ombudsman, through its Special Prosecutor, exclusively represents the People of the Philippines in cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and the Supreme Court.

• Legal Personality of Private Complainant in Criminal Cases — 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. Only the aggrieved original party in the main case, as determined by the information, is the proper party to file a petition under Rule 45. One who has not been an original party—or the offended party—in the main case has no personality to file such a petition.
• Ombudsman's Power to Prosecute and Withdraw Information — The Office of the Ombudsman has the sole power to investigate and prosecute criminal cases involving public officers. The power to withdraw an information already filed is a mere adjunct or consequence of this overall power. However, once the case is filed in court, the court acquires full control, and the information may not be dismissed without the court's approval.

• "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."
• "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 Philippines as plaintiff and the respondents as the accused."

• People v. Velez, G.R. No. 138093, February 19, 2003, 397 SCRA 721 — Followed. Established that only the aggrieved original party in the main case is the proper party to file a petition under Rule 45. A complainant in the preliminary investigation who is not the private complainant in the information lacks personality to challenge the dismissal of the criminal case.
• Espinosa v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 135775, October 19, 2000, 343 SCRA 744 — Cited. Affirmed the Ombudsman's sole power to investigate and prosecute under Section 15(1) of R.A. No. 6770.
• Nava v. National Bureau of Investigation, G.R. No. 134509, April 12, 2005, 455 SCRA 377 — Cited. Held that once a case is filed in court, the court has full control, and the information may not be dismissed without the court's approval.
• Crespo v. Mogul, G.R. No. L-53373, June 30, 1987, 151 SCRA 462 — Cited. Stated that the filing of a motion to dismiss by the prosecution may be done before or after arraignment, or after a reinvestigation.

• Section 4(c), Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act No. 8249 — 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. Applied to establish that petitioner cannot represent the People or the City of Tuguegarao in the appeal.
• Section 1, Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court, requiring the petitioner to be a party desiring to appeal from a judgment or final order. Interpreted to mean that only an aggrieved original party in the main case has the personality to file a petition.
• Section 3(g), Republic Act No. 3019 — Defines the corrupt practice of entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same. This was the offense charged against the respondent in the informations that were withdrawn.
• Section 7, Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended — Prescribes the period for filing a motion for reconsideration of any final order or decision of the Sandiganbayan within fifteen (15) days from promulgation or notice. Applied to note that the dismissal of the cases had become final and executory due to the lack of a timely appeal by the prosecution.

Renato C. Corona (Chief Justice, Chairperson), Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. del Castillo