Laurel vs. Desierto (ombudsman) A.

EXPOCORP WAS A PRIVATE CORPORATION, NOT A

GR No. 145368 | April 12, 2022 GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATION.
Ponente: Kapunan, J. B. THE NATIONAL CENTENNIAL COMMISSION (NCC) WAS
NOT A PUBLIC OFFICE.
PRINCIPLES: 1. Definition of Public Office and Public C. PETITIONER, BOTH AS CHAIRMAN OF THE NCC AND OF
Officer: A public office is the right, authority and duty, EXPOCORP WAS NOT A “PUBLIC OFFICER” AS DEFINED
created and conferred by law, by which, for a given period, UNDER THE ANTI-GRAFT & CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT.
either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the
creating power, an individual is invested with some
portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be Issue: Was petitioner, in his capacity as NCC and Expocorp
exercised by him for the benefit of the public. The Chair, a public officer, and therefore may be prosecuted as
individual so invested is a public officer. such by the Ombudsman?

2. Test or Criterion to Determine Whether or Not an Office is Ruling: Yes. The characteristics of a public office include
a Public Office. The most important characteristic which the delegation of sovereign functions, its creation by law
distinguishes an office from an employment or contract is and not by contract, an oath, salary, continuance of the
that the creation and conferring of an office involves a position, scope of duties, and the designation of the position
delegation to the individual of some of the sovereign as an office. The delegation to the individual of some of the
functions of government, to be exercised by him for the sovereign functions of government is the most important
benefit of the public; – that some portion of the characteristic in determining whether a position is a public
sovereignty of the country, either legislative, executive or office or not.
judicial, attaches, for the time being, to be exercised for the The NCC performs executive functions. The executive
public benefit. Unless the powers conferred are of this power is generally defined as the power to enforce and
nature, the individual is not a public officer. administer the laws. It is the power of carrying the laws
into practical operation and enforcing their due
Facts: On June 13, 1991, President Aquino issued observance. In its preamble, A.O. No. 223 states the
Administrative Order No. 223 constituting a Committee purposes for the creation of the Committee for the
for the preparation of the National Centennial Celebration National Centennial Celebrations in 1998: to effectively
in 1998, later renamed by President Ramos as the National showcase Filipino heritage and thereby strengthen Filipino
Centennial Commission, to take charge of preparations for values. The NCC was precisely created to execute these
the National Celebration of the Philippine Centennial of policies and objectives, to carry them into effect. It bears
the Declaration of Philippine Independence and the noting the President, upon whom the executive power is
Inauguration of the Malolos Congress. Appointed to chair vested, created the NCC by executive order. Book III of
the reconstituted Commission was Vice-President the Administrative Code (Office of the President), Chapter
Salvador H. Laurel. Subsequently, a corporation named the 2 (Ordinance Power), Section 2 describes the nature of
Philippine Centennial Expo ’98 Corporation (Expocorp) executive orders:
was created. Petitioner was elected Expocorp Chief
Executive Officer. SEC. 2. Executive Orders. – Acts of the President providing
On August 5, 1998, Senator Coseteng delivered a privilege for rules of a general or permanent character
speech in the Senate denouncing alleged anomalies in the in implementation or execution of constitutional or
construction and operation of the Centennial Exposition statutory powers shall be promulgated in executive orders.
Project at the Clark Special Economic Zone. Senator
Coseteng’s speech was referred to the Committee on Neither is the fact that the NCC was characterized by E.O.
Accountability of Public Officers and Investigation (The No. 128 as an “ad-hoc body” make said commission less of
Blue Ribbon Committee) for investigation. President a public office. Having arrived at the conclusion that the
Estrada created an independent citizens’ committee to NCC performs executive functions and is, therefore, a
investigate all the facts and circumstances surrounding the public office, we need no longer delve at length on the
Philippine centennial projects. Among the Committee’s issue of whether Expocorp is a private or a public
recommendations was “the prosecution by the corporation. Even assuming that Expocorp is a private
Ombudsman/DOJ of Dr. Salvador Laurel, chair of NCC and corporation, petitioner’s position as Chief Executive
of EXPOCORP for violating the rules on public bidding, Officer (CEO) of Expocorp arose from his Chairmanship of
relative to the award of centennial contracts to AK (Asia the NCC. Consequently, his acts or omissions as CEO of
Construction & Development Corp.); for exhibiting Expocorp must be viewed in the light of his powers and
manifest bias in the issuance of the NTP (Notice to functions as NCC Chair.
Proceed) to AK to construct the FR (Freedom Ring) even in
the absence of a valid contract that has caused material Finally, it is contended that since petitioner supposedly
injury to government and for participating in the scheme did not receive any compensation for his services as NCC
to preclude audit by COA of the funds infused by the or Expocorp Chair, he is not a public officer as defined in
government for the implementation of the said contracts Republic Act No. 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt
all in violation… of the anti-graft law.” Practices Act) and is, therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of
the Ombudsman. Such a narrow definition of public officer
Petitioner assails the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman on cannot be countenanced. It is clear that the definition of a
the ground that he is not a public officer because: “public officer” is expressly limited to the application of
R.A. No. 3019. Said definition does not apply for purposes
of determining the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, as defined under this category. As the Sandiganbayan pointed out, the
by the Constitution and the Ombudsman Act of 1989. BOR performs functions similar to those of a board of
trustees of a non-stock corporation. By express mandate of
The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law law, Hannah Serana is, indeed, a public officer as
to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. It pertains contemplated by P.D. No. 1606.
to any act or omission of any public officer or
employee when such act or omission appears to be
illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. Petitioner thus Petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
falls into that category of public officers that may be Maligalig vs. Sandiganbayan
prosecuted by the Ombudsman. GR No. 236293 | December 10, 2019
Ponente: Peralta, C.J.
Petition is DISMISSED.
Facts: Petitioner was charged before the Sandiganbayan
Serana vs. Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
GR No. 162059 | January 22, 2008 3019 and Article 217, in relation to paragraph 4 of Article
Ponente: Reyes, RT J. 48 of the Revised Penal Code, under two (2) Informations,
which read as follows:
Facts: Petitioner Hannah Eunice D. Serana was a senior
student of the University of the Philippines-Cebu. She was That on March 29, 2010, or sometime prior or subsequent
appointed by then President Joseph Estrada as a student thereto, in the City of Manila, Metro Manila,
regent of UP, to serve a one-year term. Philippines, PROCESO LAWAS MALIGALIG, a public officer,
being then the President and a member of the Board of
Directors of the Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Co., Inc.
Hannah Serana with her siblings and relatives, registered (BASECO), a government-owned or controlled
with the Securities and Exchange Commission the Office of corporation, in the discharge of his administrative and/or
the Student Regent Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI). One of the official functions and taking advantage of his official
projects of the OSRFI was the renovation of the Vinzons position, execute a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim in favor
Hall Annex. President Estrada gave Fifteen Million Pesos of Northstar Transport Facilities, Inc. (Northstar) without
(P15,000,000.00) to the OSRFI as financial assistance for authority from the BASECO Board of Directors, and receive
the proposed renovation. The renovation of Vinzons Hall from Northstar the amount of PhP3,554,000.00 as full
Annex failed to materialize. The succeeding student regent settlement of its total arrear ages of PhP4,819,198.13 to
consequently filed a complaint for Malversation of Public BASECO for the period May 2009 to February 2010
Funds and Property with the Office of the Ombudsman. covered by the Contract of Lease dated September 15,
2006 between BASECO, as lessor, and Northstar, as lessee,
Hannah Serana moved to quash the information and over BASECO properties including the eastern portion of
posited that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the land area known as Engineer Island and accretions
her person. As a student regent, she was not a public inPort Area, Manila totaling 17,896.10 square meters
officer since she merely represented her peers, in contrast more or less, and not remit the amount of
to the other regents who held their positions in an ex PhP3,554,000.00 to BASECO, causing undue injury to
officio capacity. She added that she was a simple student BASECO and the Government in the total amount of
and did not receive any salary as a student regent. PhP4,819,198.13 that was due from Northstar, and giving
Northstar unwarranted benefits and advantage.

Issue: Whether or not, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction That on March 29, 2010, or sometime prior or subsequent
over Serana as she contended that she was not a public thereto, in the City of Manila, Metro Manila,
officer. Philippines,MALIGALIG, by reason of his office and duties
is responsible and accountable for public funds entrusted
Ruling: Petitioner UP student regent is a public officer. to and received by him, committing the complex crime
charged herein while in the performance of or in relation
to office and taking advantage of his official position.
It is not only the salary grade that determines the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan also A Total of 17,896.10 square meters more or less, by means
has jurisdiction over other officers enumerated in P.D. No. of falsifying the Release, Waiver and Quitclaim dated
1606. In Geduspan v. People, the Court held that while the March 29, 2010 that he executed in favor of Northstar by
first part of Section 4(A) covers only officials with Salary making an untruthful statement therein that he executed a
Grade 27 and higher, its second part specifically includes Release, Waiver and Quitclaim to implement the
other executive officials whose positions may not be of Resolutions approved on March 24, 2010 by the BASECO
Salary Grade 27 and higher but who are by express Board of Directors in its special board meeting when, in
provision of law placed under the jurisdiction of the said truth and in fact, said statement is absolutely false
court. Hannah Serana falls under the jurisdiction of the because the BASECO Board of Directors neither approved
Sandiganbayan as she is placed there by express provision nor issued such Resolutions, and for which the accused
of law. Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606 explictly vested has a legal obligation to disclose the truth about the
the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over Presidents, absence of such Resolutions, to the damage and prejudice
directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned of BASECO, the Government and the public interest in the
or controlled corporations, state universities or aforestated amount.
educational institutions or foundations. Petitioner falls
Petitioner contended that the Sandiganbayan has no GOCC 's Supervised by the PCGG. It argues that the
jurisdiction over his person and that the Office of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is not undermined by
Ombudsman had no authority to file the above-quoted the fact that BASECO is under sequestration by the PCGG,
Informations against him. Petitioner, in the alternative, but instead reinforces the proposition that BASECO is a
also moved for the suspension of his arraignment on government entity utilizing public funds.
the ground of a prejudicial question.
Citing Section 7, Rule Ill of the Revised Rules of
Issue: WON the respondent court has jurisdiction over Criminal Procedure, it asseverates that there was no
the case and the person of the accused? prejudicial question involved which would justify the
suspension of the criminal proceedings against the
Ruling: Petitioner contends that (BASECO) is not a petitioner.
government-owned or controlled corporation. He
argued that, while BASECO was under sequestration by In their separate Comments, the PCGG
the Presidential Commission on Good Government and BASECO alleged essentially the same arguments in
(PCGG), there was no divestment oftitle over the seized asserting that petitioner is a public officer. It was asserted
property since the PCGG has only powers of in their respective Comments that BASECO's income, as a
administration and that it may not exercise acts of sequestered corporation, are remitted to the PCGG and
ownership over the property sequestered, frozen or then turned-over to the Bureau of Treasury. Also, he
provisionally taken over. handled the affairs of BASECO in representation and
protection of the interests of the government. Thus,
Petitioner posits that since BASECO is a private petitioner is a public officer exercising functions for public
corporation under the tutelage of PCGG as conservator benefit, namely, management of sequestered corporation
and that he was elected to the BOD by reason of his being a and earning income for the government.
stockholder of the company, he cannot be considered as a
public official or employee within the definition of Section In law, nothing is as elementary as the concept of
2(b) of R.A. No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft jurisdiction, for the same is the foundation upon which the
and Corrupt Practices Act. Not being a public official or courts exercise their power of adjudication, and without
employee, he asserts that the Sandiganbayan has no which, no rights or obligation could emanate from any
jurisdiction over his person and that, consequently, the decision or resolution.
Office of the Ombudsman also has no jurisdiction to
conduct preliminary investigation against him. Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a
court to hear, try and decide a case.
Sought for comment to the present petition, the OSP
(ombudsman) contend that the Sandiganbayan has The Information for violation of the anti graft law asserts
jurisdiction over the case and person of petitioner. It that petitioner, "in the discharge of his administrative
argued that the jurisdiction of a court in criminal cases is and/or official functions and taking advantage of his
determined by the allegations in the complaint or official position, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
information. Once it is shown that it has jurisdiction, the and criminally, with evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
court may validly take cognizanceof the case and the negligence" performed the acts constitutive of the offense
court's jurisdiction to try a criminal case is determined at charged.
the time of the institution of the action, not at the time of
the commission of the offense. On the other hand, the charge for the
complex crime of Malversation of Public Funds through
The OSP insists that the two (2) Informations against Falsification of Public Document was allegedly committed
the petitioner sufficiently state the elements of the crime by the petitioner "while in the performance of or in
charged. It points out petitioner's own admission in his relation to his office and taking advantage of his official
Counter-Affidavit dated June 30, 2014 that he was position." Both Informations also alleged that petitioner
appointed as member of the BOD of BASECO, and later as is a public officer "being then the President and a member
its President by former President Gloria Macapagal- of the Board of Directors of the Bataan Shipyard and
Arroyo. Engineering Co., Inc. (BASECO), a government-owned or -
controlled corporation. " Thus, on the basis of the
It stressed that Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by allegations in the accusatory Informations alone, there is
R.A. No. 10660, enumerates the officials and offenses or sufficient basis for the Sandiganbayan to take cognizance
felonies cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. The crimes of the two (2) cases against the petitioner. The
charged against the petitioner, who is a public officer as jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined
defined by Section 2 of P.D. No. 1602, are expressly stated by the allegations in the complaint or information. And
in the Section 4(a) and (b), hence, within the original once if it shown, the court may validly take cognizance of
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Pursuant to R.A. No. the case.
6770, or The Ombudsman Law, it is the Office of the
Ombudsman that has the authority to file the cases against Petitioner's defense that he was not a public officer at the
the petitioner with the Sandiganbayan. time of the alleged commission of the offense does not
hold water. It is well-settled that, "jurisdiction is not
The OSP insists that BASECO is a government-owned or affected by the pleas or the theories set up by
controlled corporation (GOCC), as classified by the defendant or respondent in an answer, a motion to
Governance Commission for GOCCs under the category dismiss, or a motion to quash. Otherwise, jurisdiction
would become dependentalmost entirely upon the subsequent loan accommodations. The Committee found
whims of defendant or respondent." Besides, his that the loans extended to ISI bore characteristics of
admission in his Counter-Affidavit filed before the Office of behest loans specifically for not having been secured with
the Ombudsman that he was appointed as member of the sufficient collaterals and obtained with undue haste.
Board of Directors, and eventually as President of
BASECO by former President Gloria Macapagal- As a result, Atty. Orlando Salvador filed with the Office of
Arroyo, militates against his claim that he was not a public the Ombudsman a sworn complaint dated 20 March 1996,
officer. A public officer is defined in the Revised Penal for violation of Section 3, paragraphs (e) and (g), of
Code as "any person who, by direct provision of the law, Republic Act No. 3019, as amended. Hence, the
popular election, or appointment by competent authority, corresponding eighteen (18) Informations against
shall take part in the performance of public functions in petitioner and his co-accused for violation of Section 3(e)
the Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall and (g) of Rep. Act No. 3019 were filed before the
perform in said Government, or in any of its branches, Sandiganbayan. The eighteen (18) Informations
public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, correspond to the nine (9) loan accommodations granted
of any rank or class." to ISI, each loan being the subject of two informations
alleging violations of both paragraphs of Section 3 of Rep.
The concept of a public officer was expounded further Act No. 3019.
in the Serana case, where it was held that, "An
investment in an individual of some portion of the Thus, herein petitioner was charged with nine counts of
sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by violation of Section 3(e),7 and another nine counts of
him for the benefit of the public makes onea public violation of Section 3(g),8 of Republic Act No.3019 (RA
officer." As President of a sequestered company like 3019), or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
BASECO, petitioner is expected to perform functions that Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 26297-26314, the cases
would benefit the public in general. involved the purported granting of behest loans by the
government’s Philippine National Bank (PNB) to
Thus, the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of Integrated Shoes, Inc. (ISI), in various amounts and on
discretion in denying petitioner's Motion to Quash and different dates as above-enumerated.
Motion for Reconsideration. It definitely has jurisdiction
over the case and over the person of the petitioner since Some of the accused passed away, hence the dismissal of
offenses for violation of R.A. No. 3019 and the complex the case against them. Nonetheless, trial ensued with
crime of Malversation of Public Funds through respect to the remaining cases.
Falsification of Public Document and petitioner's
position, as alleged in the two (2) Informations, are Prosecution presented their testimonial evidence and
clearly among those offenses and felonies and public documentary evidence. After the presentation of its
officers enumerated in P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. testimonial and documentary evidence, the prosecution
No. 10660. rested its case and filed its Formal Offer of Exhibits. The
respondent court admitted in toto the State’s documentary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition exhibits.
for Certiorari is DENIED for utter lack of merit.
Petitioner, with prior leave, filed a Demurrer to Evidence
anchored on the following grounds: (1) lack of proof of
Singian, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan conspiracy with any PNB official; (2) the contracts with
GR Nos. 195011-19 | September 30, 2013 PNB contained provisions that are beneficial, and not
Ponente: Del Castillo, J. manifestly and grossly disadvantageous, to the
government; (3)the loans could not be characterized as
Facts: Atty. Orlando L. Salvador was PCGG Consultant on behest loans because they were secured by sufficient
detail with the Presidential Ad Hoc Committee on Behest collaterals and ISI increased its capitalization; and (4)
Loans (Committee). He was also the coordinator of the assuming the loans are behest loans, petitioner could not
Technical Working Group composed of officers and be held liable for lack of any participation. However, the
employees of government financing institutions to Sandiganbayan denied the demurrer.
examine and study the reports and recommendations of
the Asset Privatization Trust relating to loan accounts in Issue: WON the respondent court committed grave abuse
all government financing institutions. Among the accounts of discretion in denying the Demurrer to Evidence arguing
acted upon by the Committee were the loans granted to that in petitioner’s case, not all the elements under Section
Integrated Shoe, Inc. (ISI) by the Philippine National Bank 3(g) exist to hold petitioner liable?
(PNB).
Held: No. The Sandiganbayan found that the prosecution
In 1972, the PNB approved the loan, subject to certain presented sufficient or competent evidence to establish
stipulations. The said letter of credit was to be secured by the three material elements of Section 3(g) of RA3019.
the following collaterals: a) a second mortgage on a lot First, although petitioner is a private person, he was
with improvements, machinery and equipment; b) shown to have connived with his co-accused. Second, ISI
machinery and equipment to be imported under the and PNB entered into several loan transactions and credit
subject letter of credit; and c) assignment of US$0.50 per accommodations. Finally, the loan transactions proved
pair of shoes of ISI’s export sales. It was further subjected disadvantageous to the government.
to the several conditions. ISI was then further extended
 alleged to have conspired, has died prior to the filing of the
There is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Information.
Sandiganbayan in denying petitioner’s Demurrer to
Evidence. At the outset, we emphasize that “the resolution Ruling: The Court finds the petition meritorious.
of a demurrer to evidence should be left to the exercise of Section 3 (g) of R.A. 3019 provides:
sound judicial discretion. A lower court’s order of denial Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. – In addition to
shall not be disturbed, that is, the appellate courts will not acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by
review the prosecution’s evidence and precipitately decide existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt
whether such evidence has established the guilt of the practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to
accused beyond a reasonable doubt, unless accused has be unlawful:
established that such judicial discretion has been gravely
abused, there by amounting to a lack or excess of (g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any
jurisdiction. Mere allegations of such abuse will not suffice. contract or transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public
In this case, petitioner miserably failed to present an iota officer profited or will profit thereby.
of evidence to show that the Sandiganbayan abused, much
more, gravely abused, its discretion in denying petitioner’s The elements of the above provision are:
Demurrer to Evidence. We agree with the PCGG’s (1) that the accused is a public officer;
observation that the Sandiganbayan arrived at its (2) that he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf
conclusion after a careful and deliberate examination and of the government; and
assessment of all the evidence submitted. A closer scrutiny (3) that such contract or transaction is grossly and
of the assailed Resolutions would indeed show that the manifestly disadvantageous to the government.
Sandiganbayan meticulously discussed both testimonial
and documentary evidence presented by the prosecution. At the outset, it bears to reiterate the settled rule that
It was only after a careful analysis of the facts and private persons, when acting in conspiracy with public
evidence presented did the respondent court lay down its officers, may be indicted and, if found guilty, held liable for
findings and conclusions. the pertinent offenses under Section 3 of R.A. 3019, in
consonance with the avowed policy of the anti-graft law to
repress certain acts of public officers and private persons
alike constituting graft or corrupt practices act or which
People vs. Go may lead thereto.
GR No. 168539 | March 25, 2014
Ponente: Peralta, J. The requirement before a private person may be indicted
for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019, among others, is
Facts: Before the Court is a petition for review on that such private person must be alleged to have acted in
certiorari assailing the Resolution of the Third Division of conspiracy with a public officer.
the Sandiganbayan (SB) dated June 2, 2005 which quashed
the Information filed against herein respondent for alleged The law, however, does not require that such person must,
violation of Section 3 (g) of Republic Act No. 3019 (R.A. in all instances, be indicted together with the public
3019), otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt officer. If circumstances exist where the public officer may
Practices Act. no longer be charged in court, as in the present case where
the public officer has already died, the private person may
Herein respondent was indicted for violation of Section be indicted alone.
3(g) of R.A. 3019. While there was likewise a finding of
probable cause against Secretary Enrile, he was no longer Indeed, it is not necessary to join all alleged co-
indicted because he died prior to the issuance of the conspirators in an indictment for conspiracy. If two or
resolution finding probable cause. more persons enter into a conspiracy, any act done by any
of them pursuant to the agreement is, in contemplation of
Thus, in an Information, respondent was charged before law, the act of each of them and they are jointly
the Sandiganbayan. Respondent filed a Motion to Quash responsible therefor.
the Information filed against him on the ground that the
operative facts adduced therein do not constitute an This means that everything said, written or done by any of
offense under Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019. the conspirators in execution or furtherance of the
common purpose is deemed to have been said, done, or
It appearing that Henry T. Go, the lone accused in this case written by each of them and it makes no difference
is a private person and his alleged co-conspirator-public whether the actual actor is alive or dead, sane or insane at
official was already deceased long before this case was the time of trial.
filed in court, for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
accused, the SB granted the Motion to Quash and the The death of one of two or more conspirators does not
Information filed was ordered quashed and dismissed. prevent the conviction of the survivor or survivors.

Issue: WHETHER OR NOT respondent, a private person,

may be indicted for conspiracy in violating Section 3(g) of Ampil vs. Office of the Ombudsman
R.A. 3019 even if the public officer, with whom he was GR Nos. 192685 & 199115 | July 31, 2013
Ponente: Perez, J.
 complaint. The Ombudsman did not have probable cause
Facts: On 9 November 1995, ASB Realty Corporation to indict respondents for falsification of the CCTs because
(ASB) and Malayan Insurance Company (MICO) entered the last element of the crime, i.e., that the change made the
into a Joint Project Development Agreement (JPDA) for the document speak something false, had not been
construction of a condominium building to be known as established. Significantly, the Ombudsman did not dispose
"The Malayan Tower." Under the JPDA, MICO shall provide of whether probable cause exists to indict respondents for
the real property located at the heart of the Ortigas violation of Sections 3(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
Business District, Pasig City, while ASB would construct,
and shoulder the cost of construction and development of Ampil filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which
the condominium building. A year thereafter, on 20 was denied. He then filed a petition with the Supreme
November 1996, MICO and ASB entered into another Court for one is for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
contract, with MICO selling to ASB the land it was Court docketed as G.R. No. 192685, challenging Resolution
contributing under the JPDA. Under the Contract to Sell, OMB-C-C-07-0444-J, dismissing the criminal complaint
ownership of the land will vest on ASB only upon full filed by Ampil against respondents and the Order denying
payment of the purchase price. Ampil’s motion for reconsideration thereof.

Sometime in 2000, ASB, as part of the ASB Group

of Companies, filed a Petition for Rehabilitation with PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS:
Prayer for Suspension of Actions and Proceedings before
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Because of Petitioner argues that respondents in conspiracy,
the obvious financial difficulties, ASB was unable to erased the name of ASB, and intercalated and substituted
perform its obligations to MICO under the JPDA and the the name of MICO under the entry of registered owner in
Contract to Sell. Thus, on 30 April 2002, MICO and ASB the questioned CCTs covering the subject units of The
executed their Third contract, a Memorandum of Malayan Tower; the alterations were done without the
Agreement (MOA), allowing MICO to assume the entire necessary order from the proper court, in direct violation
responsibility for the development and completion of The of Section 108 of Presidential Decree No. 1529;
Malayan Tower. respondents violated Article 171(6) of the Revised Penal
Code by: 1 Altering the CCTs which are public documents;
On 11 March 2005, Condominium Certificates of 2 Effecting the alterations on genuine documents; 3
Title (CCTs) for 38 units and the allotted parking spaces Changing the meaning of the CCTs with MICO now
were issued in the name of ASB. On even date but prior to appearing as registered owner of the subject units in
its release, another set of CCTs covering the same subject Malayan Tower; and 4 Effectively, making the documents
units but with MICO as registered owner thereof, was speak something false when ASB is the true owner of the
signed by Espenesin in his capacity as Registrar of Deeds subject units, and not MICO. Also, as an unsecured creditor
of Pasig City. Notably, Espenesin had likewise signed the of ASB, Ampil was unjustly prejudiced by the felonious
CCTs which were originally issued in ASB’s name. acts of respondents. Respondents violated Sections 3(a)
and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019: Respondent Espenesin,
After learning of the amendment in the CCTs as Registrar of the Pasig City Registry of Deeds, committed
issued in ASB’s name, Ampil, on 23 January 2007, wrote an offense in connection with his official duties by
respondents Yuchengco and Cheng, President and Chief allowing himself to be persuaded, induced or influenced
Financial Officer of MICO, respectively, introducing himself by respondent Serrano into altering the questioned CCTs;
as an unsecured creditor of ASB Holdings, Inc., one of the and The actions of respondent Espenesin demonstrate
corporations forming part of the ASB Group of Companies. manifest partiality, evident bad faith and/or, at the least,
Ampil averred that MICO had illegally registered in its gross inexcusable negligence. Respondents Yuchengco and
name the subject units at The Malayan Tower which were Cheng, being responsible officers of MICO, as principals by
reserved for ASB under the MOA, and actually, already inducement and conspirators of Espenesin and Serrano,
registered in ASB’s name with the Register of Deeds of are likewise liable for falsification of the CCTs and
Pasig City. Ampil pointed out that the "condominium units violation of Sections 3(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
should have benefited him and other unsecured creditors
of ASB because the latter had categorically informed them
previously that the same would be contributed to the
Asset Pool created under the Rehabilitation Plan of the RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS:
ASB Group of Companies." Ultimately, Ampil demanded
that Yuchengco and Cheng rectify the resulting error in the Respondent Espenesin countered, among others,
CCTs, and facilitate the registration of the subject units (i) that their intention was only to cause the necessary
back to ASB’s name. rectification on certain errors made on the CCTs in issue;
(ii) that since the CCTs were not yet issued and released to
Ampil then charged respondents with the parties, it is still within his authority, as part of the
Falsification of Public Documents under Article 171(6) of registration process, to make the necessary amendments
the Revised Penal Code and violation of Sections 3(a) and or corrections thereon; (iii) that no court order would be
(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 before the Office of the necessary to effect such changes, the CCTs still being
Ombudsman. within the control of the Register of Deeds and have not
yet been released to the respective owners; (iv) that the
Thereafter, the Ombudsman issued the assailed amendments were made not for the purpose of falsifying
Resolution in G.R. No. 192685 dismissing Ampil’s the CCTs in issue but to make the same reflect and declare
the truth; and (v) that he merely made the corrections in
accordance with the representations of respondent Despite the admission by Espenesin that he had
Serrano who he believed to be guarding and representing altered the CCTs and the Ombudsman’s findings thereon,
both the interests of MICO and ASB. the Ombudsman abruptly dismissed Ampil’s complaint-
affidavit, resolving only one of the charges contained
Respondent Serrano, on the other hand, argued: therein with nary a link regarding the other charge of
(i) that the units in issue are not yet owned by ASB; (ii) violation of Sections 3(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
that these units were specifically segregated and reserved Indeed, as found by the Ombudsman, the 4th element of
for MICO in order to answer for any excess in the the crime of Falsification of Public Documents is lacking, as
estimated cost that it will expend in the completion of the the actual ownership of the subject units at The Malayan
Malayan Tower; (iii) that ASB is only entitled to these Tower has yet to be resolved. Nonetheless, this
reserved units only after the Malayan Tower is completed circumstance does not detract from, much less diminish,
and that the units are not utilized to cover for the increase Ampil’s charge, and the evidence pointing to the possible
in the cost expended by MICO pursuant to Section 4(c) of commission, of offenses under Sections 3(a) and (e) of the
the MOA; (iv) that the Malayan Tower was still incomplete Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
at the time when the alterations were made on the CCT,
hence, the claim of ownership of ASB over the reserved As Registrar of the Registry of Deeds of Pasig City,
units is premature and totally baseless; (v) that prior to Espenesin is tasked, among others, to review deeds and
the fulfillment of the resolutory condition, that is, after the other documents for conformance with the legal
completion of the Malayan Tower and there remains a requirements of registration.
balance in the Remaining Construction Cost, the units still
rightfully belongs to MICO; and (vi) that the alteration was There is sufficient ground to engender a well-
made merely for the purpose of correcting an error. founded belief that respondents Espenesin and
Serrano committed prohibited acts listed in Sections
Respondents Cheng and Yuchengco, while 3(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
adopting the foregoing arguments of Espenesin and
Serrano, further averred that: (i) Ampil has no legal As regards Yuchengco and Cheng, apart from
personality to file this suit, he being merely an unsecured Ampil’s general assertions that the two, as officers of
creditor of ASB whose interest was not definitively shown MICO, benefited from the alteration of the CCTs, there is a
to have been damaged by the subject controversy; (ii) that dearth of evidence pointing to their collective
their participation as respondents and alleged co- responsibility therefor. While the fact of alteration was
conspirators of Serrano and Espenesin was not clearly admitted by respondents and was affirmed in the
shown and defined in the complaint; (iii) the CCTs issued Ombudsman’s finding of fact, there is nothing that directly
in the name of ASB have not yet been entered in the links Yuchengco and Cheng to the act.
Registration Book at the time when the alterations were
effected, hence, the same could still be made subject of In this case, however, certiorari will lie, given
appropriate amendments; (iv) that the CCTs in issue that the Ombudsman made no finding at all on
named in favor of ASB were mere drafts and cannot legally respondents possible liability for violation of Sections
be considered documents within the strict definition of the 3(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
law; (v) that court order authorizing to amend a title is
necessary only if the deed or document sought to be WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 192685 is
registered has already been entered in the registration PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Resolution of the Ombudsman
book; and (vi) that MICO is the duly registered owner of dated 30 April 2008 in OMB-C-C-07-0444-J is REVERSED
the land on which Malayan Tower stands and ASB was and SET ASIDE. The Ombudsman is hereby directed to file
merely referred to as the developer. the necessary Information for violation of Sections 3(a)
and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 against public respondent
Policarpio L. Espenesin and private respondent Francis
Issue: Did the Ombudsman commit grave abuse of Serrano.
discretion in failing to find probable cause to indict
respondents for Falsification of Public Documents under The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 28 September
Article 171(6) of the Revised Penal Code, and for their 2011 in CA-G.R. SP No. 113171 and the Order dated 13 July
commission of corrupt practices under Sections 3(a) and 2009 of the Ombudsman in OMB-C-A-07-0474-J are
(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent Policarpio L.
Espenesin is GUlLTY of Grave Misconduct and we, thus,
impose the penalty of DIMISSAL from service.
Ruling: GR. No. 192685 is partially impressed with merit.
There is grave abuse of discretion in the Ombudsman’s
incomplete disposition of Ampil’s complaint. While the Office of the Court Administrator vs. Nolasco
Supreme Court agrees with the Ombudsman’s disquisition AM. No. P-06-2148 | March 4, 2009
that there is no probable cause to indict respondents for
Falsification of Public Documents under Article 171(6) of Facts:
the Revised Penal Code, there is a question of why the
Ombudsman completely glossed over Ampil’s charge that
respondents committed prohibited acts listed in Sections
3(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019.