People vs. Velez

A private individual who initiates a criminal complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman but is not named as the offended party in the Information filed in court has no legal personality to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, as only the original parties to the main case — the State as plaintiff and the accused — and the private complainant (limited to the civil aspect) may do so. The Sandiganbayan did not err in treating a joint motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation as a motion for reconsideration under Section 27 of RA 6770 where the Ombudsman had prematurely filed the Information before the statutory period for filing such motion had lapsed.

Petitioner Ignacio Salmingo was a former member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Silay City. The respondents were high-ranking officials of Silay City: City Mayor Edwin D. Velez, City Accountant Eli G. Alminaza, Acting City Treasurer Arturo J. Siason, and City Engineer Eladio S. Mondragon, Jr. The dispute arose from the city government's procurement of a rock crusher and related heavy equipment financed through a ₱10 million loan from the Land Bank of the Philippines, which Salmingo alleged was conducted without proper appropriation, environmental clearance, and resulted in the acquisition of defective, overpriced equipment causing financial injury to the city.

Petitioner Ignacio Salmingo was a former member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Silay City who filed an affidavit-criminal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman for Visayas charging City Mayor Edwin D. Velez, City Accountant Eli G. Alminaza, Acting City Treasurer Arturo J. Siason, City Engineer Eladio S. Mondragon, Jr., and City Budget Officer Salvador G. Ascalon, Jr. with multiple offenses arising from the procurement of a rock crusher and related heavy equipment. The charges included operating a rock crusher without an Environmental Clearance Certificate from the DENR, incurring an overdraft of ₱3.991 million in violation of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual, entering into a grossly disadvantageous transaction under Section 3(g) of RA 3019, malversation of ₱2.528 million under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, and technical malversation of at least ₱11.648 million under Section 305(a) of the Local Government Code and Article 220 of the RPC.

According to Salmingo's complaint, on January 5, 1995, Mayor Velez requested the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Silay City for authority to enter into a loan agreement with the Land Bank of the Philippines to purchase a rock crusher. The Sangguniang Panlungsod passed Resolution No. 563 authorizing Velez to negotiate a ₱10 million loan and to mortgage the city's patrimonial properties, but the resolution did not specify that the loan proceeds would be used to procure a rock crusher, and no appropriation ordinance was enacted authorizing the use of any fund for that purpose. Sometime in February 1995, even before final approval and release of the LBP loan proceeds, and without any Sangguniang Panlungsod appropriation, Mayor Velez accepted delivery of a rock crusher and related heavy equipment from the supplier, YY & Company of Mandaue City, and caused payment totaling ₱11,648,000, covering one Komatsu Payloader at ₱1,650,000, one Fuso Dump Truck at ₱1,438,000, one Caterpillar Bulldozer at ₱3,445,000, and one used rock crusher set at ₱5,115,000.

The LBP loan proceeds were released in tranches: ₱6.19 million in March 1995, ₱2.56 million in April 1995, and ₱1.25 million in March 1996, totaling ₱10 million. The disbursements allegedly caused an overdraft of ₱3.991 million under the Capital Outlay item of the Office of the City Mayor as of June 30, 1995. As of the same date, Mayor Velez had received ₱8.719 million from the LBP but had used only ₱6.191 million for payment of the equipment, leaving ₱2.528 million unaccounted for. The rock crusher was installed without an Environmental Clearance Certificate from the DENR. During its inauguration on June 12, 1995, the plant failed to operate because it was a used, defective unit whose major components did not match. Even after major repairs and re-inauguration on February 29, 1996, it again broke down. Silay City was burdened with interest payments of at least ₱250,000 per quarter starting in the third quarter of 1995.

After preliminary investigation, the Graft Investigator issued a Resolution on July 28, 1997 finding probable cause against all respondents except the City Budget Officer for violation of Section 3(g) of RA 3019, and recommending dismissal of all other charges. The Ombudsman approved this on October 17, 1997. On October 22, 1997 — the last day of the five-day period for respondents to file a motion for reconsideration under Section 27 of RA 6770 — the Office of the Ombudsman filed the corresponding Information with the Sandiganbayan. Respondents posted bail and filed a Joint Motion for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation with the Sandiganbayan on November 24, 1997. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion on December 1, 1997 and directed the Special Prosecutor to re-evaluate the evidence. After re-evaluation, the Special Prosecutor found no sufficient evidence that the equipment was overpriced — the price having been determined through a public bidding that appeared regularly conducted — and found no proof that the other officials had knowledge of the equipment's defects before or at the time of payment. Only City Engineer Mondragon, Jr. was found to have been grossly negligent in failing to inspect the equipment. The Ombudsman concurred, and on August 20, 1998, the prosecution filed a Motion to Withdraw Information against all respondents, without prejudice to filing a new Information against Mondragon, Jr. alone for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. Salmingo opposed the motion, contending that the reinvestigation was unauthorized and that the evidence showed conspiracy among all accused. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion on January 9, 1999 and dismissed the case. Salmingo's motion for reconsideration was denied on February 16, 1999, the Sandiganbayan ruling that the aggrieved party was the City of Silay and not Salmingo.

• Legal Personality: Salmingo contended that as the party who charged the respondents with various offenses, he was the offended party under Section 9 of RA 3019, thus conferring upon him legal personality to intervene in the criminal case and to oppose the prosecution's motion to withdraw the Information.
• Violation of Section 27, RA 6770: Salmingo asserted that the Sandiganbayan violated Section 27 of RA 6770 when it treated the respondents' Joint Motion for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation as a motion for reconsideration under that section, merely because the prosecution and respondents had so agreed. He argued that the agreement was null and void for being contrary to law, as Section 27 allows only one motion for reconsideration and proscribes a motion for reinvestigation.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion by the Ombudsman: Salmingo alleged that the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion when it set aside its July 28, 1997 Resolution finding probable cause, moved for the withdrawal of the Information against all respondents, and recommended filing a new Information only against the City Engineer.
• Abdication by the Sandiganbayan: Salmingo contended that even if he lacked personality to participate, the Sandiganbayan should not have acted arbitrarily in granting the motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation and the motion to withdraw the Information, thereby abdicating its duty to enforce the law.

• Improper Party: Respondents asserted that Salmingo was not the proper party to file the petition, as he was not a party in the main case before the Sandiganbayan.
• Authority of the Sandiganbayan: Respondents maintained that the Sandiganbayan had the authority to grant the motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation as well as the withdrawal of the Information and dismissal of the case, citing Crespo vs. Mogul.

• Legal Standing: Whether Salmingo is the proper party to file the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
• Validity of Sandiganbayan Action: Whether the Sandiganbayan violated Section 27 of RA 6770 when it treated the respondents' Joint Motion for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation as a motion for reconsideration under Section 27 of RA 6770 and when it granted the Motion to Withdraw Information filed by the Office of the Ombudsman and dismissed Criminal Case No. 24307.

• Legal Standing: No. Salmingo was not a party in the main case before the Sandiganbayan; the parties were the People of the Philippines as plaintiff and the respondents as accused, with the City of Silay as the private complainant. Under Section 1, Rule 45, only the aggrieved original party in the main case may file a petition for review on certiorari.
• Validity of Sandiganbayan Action: No. The Sandiganbayan did not violate Section 27 of RA 6770. The Office of the Ombudsman had prematurely filed the Information on October 22, 1997 — the last day of the five-day period within which respondents could file their motion for reconsideration — thereby depriving respondents of their statutory right. Treating the joint motion as a motion for reconsideration under Section 27 merely corrected the Ombudsman's procedural lapse.

• Legal Standing: The governing rule is Section 1, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows only a "party desiring to appeal by certiorari" to file a verified petition. The "party" referred to is the original party in the main case aggrieved by the order or decision therein. One who was not an original party has no personality to seek review under Rule 45. While Salmingo initiated the criminal complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman, the Information filed with the Sandiganbayan named the People of the Philippines as plaintiff and the respondents as accused; the private complainant was the City of Silay, the entity that suffered damage. Salmingo was merely a witness for the plaintiff. A private complainant in a criminal case before the Sandiganbayan may file a petition under Rule 45 but only on the civil aspect of the case. Salmingo was not even the private complainant. His inclusion of the People of the Philippines as a party petitioner was patently unauthorized and a futile attempt to comply with Rule 45.

• Validity of Sandiganbayan Action: Section 27 of RA 6770 provides that a motion for reconsideration of any order, directive, or decision of the Office of the Ombudsman must be filed within five days after receipt of written notice, and that only one motion for reconsideration shall be entertained. The Ombudsman approved the resolution finding probable cause on October 17, 1997. Even assuming respondents received notice on that date, they had until October 22, 1997 to file their motion for reconsideration. Yet the Office of the Ombudsman filed the Information with the Sandiganbayan on October 22, 1997 — the last day of the period — thus prematurely depriving respondents of their right to file a motion for reconsideration. The Ombudsman recognized its procedural error when it agreed to treat the respondents' Joint Motion for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation filed with the Sandiganbayan as a motion for reconsideration under Section 27. This was merely a self-correction. The Office of the Ombudsman is vested under the 1987 Constitution with investigatory and prosecutorial powers, and through the Special Prosecutor, has direct control over the prosecution of the case. When it moved to withdraw the Information upon finding no probable cause against respondents except the City Engineer, it merely exercised those powers. Courts are loathe to interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of its constitutional mandate. While the Ombudsman has discretion to determine whether an Information should be withdrawn, the final disposition of the motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the Sandiganbayan, subject only to the caveat that the action must not impair the substantial rights of the accused and of the People to due process. The Sandiganbayan acted in the exercise of its sound judicial discretion in granting the motion and dismissing the case.

• Proper Party in Rule 45 Petitions — Only the aggrieved original party in the main case may file a petition for review on certiorari under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. One who was not an original party in the main case has no personality to seek review. A private complainant in a criminal case may file a Rule 45 petition but only on the civil aspect of the case. In this case, Salmingo, who initiated the Ombudsman complaint but was neither a party to the Information nor the private complainant (the City of Silay was), had no standing to file the petition.

• Ombudsman's Investigatory and Prosecutorial Powers — The Office of the Ombudsman is vested under the 1987 Constitution with investigatory and prosecutorial powers. Through the Special Prosecutor, it has direct control over the prosecution of cases. Courts should not interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of these powers, based on respect for the constitutional mandate and practicality. The Ombudsman's determination of whether to file, withdraw, or dismiss an Information is within its discretion, though the final disposition of any motion to withdraw is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court or the Sandiganbayan.

• Section 27, RA 6770 — Motion for Reconsideration Before the Ombudsman — A motion for reconsideration of any order, directive, or decision of the Office of the Ombudsman must be filed within five days after receipt of written notice, and only one motion for reconsideration shall be entertained. The Information must not be filed before the lapse of this five-day period, otherwise the accused is deprived of the statutory right to seek reconsideration. Where the Ombudsman prematurely files the Information on the last day of the period, treating a subsequent motion filed with the court as a motion for reconsideration under Section 27 constitutes a valid correction of the procedural lapse.

• "The 'party' referred to in the rule is the original party in the main case aggrieved by the order or decision in the main case. Hence, only the aggrieved original party in the main case is the only proper party as petitioner. One who has not been an original party in the main case has no personality to file a petition under said rule." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the standing issue, defining who qualifies as a proper party under Rule 45.

• "Patently, the Office of the Ombudsman filed the Information prematurely, thus depriving respondents of their right to file their motion for reconsideration as provided for in Section 27 of Republic Act 6770." — This is the Court's key finding on the second issue, establishing that the Ombudsman's premature filing of the Information was the procedural defect that justified treating the respondents' subsequent motion as one under Section 27.

• "This is an exercise of the Ombudsman's powers based upon constitutional mandate and the courts should not interfere in such exercise. The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well." — This passage states the canonical formulation of the doctrine of non-interference with the Ombudsman's exercise of its constitutional powers, frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence.

• Arcilla vs. Court of Appeals, 215 SCRA 120 (1992) — Followed. Cited for the rule that only the original parties to the main case may seek review under Rule 45; an entity not made a party in the main case and which did not seek to intervene has no personality to do so.

• Banal vs. Tadeo, Jr., 156 SCRA 325 (1997) — Followed. Cited to support the proposition that the private complainant in a criminal case before the Sandiganbayan is a proper party to file a petition under Rule 45, but only on the civil aspect of the case.

• Crespo vs. Mogul, 151 SCRA 462 (1987) — Cited by the Sandiganbayan and respondents for the proposition that the prosecution has the authority to move for the withdrawal of the Information. The Supreme Court did not overturn or distinguish this citation but resolved the issue on broader grounds encompassing the Ombudsman's constitutional powers.

• Domondon vs. Sandiganbayan, 328 SCRA 292 (2000) — Followed. Cited for the doctrine that courts should not interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of its investigatory and prosecutorial powers, based on constitutional mandate and practicality.

• Galvez vs. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 685 (1995) — Followed. Cited for the principle that while the Ombudsman has discretion to determine whether an Information should be withdrawn, the final disposition of the motion and the case is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, subject to the caveat that substantial rights of the accused and the People to due process must not be impaired.

• Section 1, Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides that a party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Sandiganbayan may file a verified petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, raising only questions of law. Applied to determine that Salmingo, not being an original party in the main case, had no personality to file the petition.

• Section 27, Republic Act 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) — Governs the effectivity and finality of decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman, requiring that a motion for reconsideration be filed within five days after receipt of written notice and allowing only one motion for reconsideration. Applied to determine that the Ombudsman prematurely filed the Information before the lapse of the five-day period, and that the Sandiganbayan's treatment of the respondents' joint motion as a motion for reconsideration under this section was proper.

• Section 3(g), Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — Prohibits entering into a transaction on behalf of the government that is grossly or manifestly disadvantageous to the government. The original Information charged respondents with violation of this provision; the Ombudsman later recommended withdrawal of this Information and filing of a new one under Section 3(e) against the City Engineer only.

• Section 3(e), Republic Act 3019 — Prohibits causing undue injury to any party through evident bad faith, gross negligence, or manifest partiality in the discharge of official functions. The Ombudsman recommended filing a new Information under this provision solely against City Engineer Mondragon, Jr. for gross negligence in failing to inspect the equipment.

• Section 5, Rule 110, 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure — Cited by the Sandiganbayan for the proposition that the prosecution has control of the prosecution of the case and the right to move for withdrawal of the Information.

Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Austria-Martinez, JJ., concurred.