G.R. No. 192685 - Ampil vs. Office of the Ombudsman

Oscar R. Ampil (Ampil), petitioner, filed consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court questioning:

The dismissal by the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) of his criminal complaint against respondents Policarpio L. Espenesin (Registrar of Deeds, Pasig City), Francis Serrano, Yvonne S. Yuchengco, and Gema O. Cheng for alleged falsification of public documents and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019).
The Court of Appeals’ affirmation of the Ombudsman’s order absolving Espenesin from administrative liability for alleged misconduct.

Falsification of Public Documents under Article 171(6) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Violations of Sections 3(a) and 3(e) of RA 3019.

ASB Realty Corporation (ASB) and Malayan Insurance Company (MICO) entered a Joint Project Development Agreement (JPDA) in 1995 for a condominium project called The Malayan Tower in Pasig City.
Under JPDA, MICO contributed the land; ASB would bear the cost and construct the condominium.
In 1996, MICO and ASB executed a Contract to Sell wherein ownership would vest in ASB only upon full payment.
ASB later filed a Petition for Rehabilitation with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2000 due to financial difficulties; the SEC approved the Rehabilitation Plan including the ASB-Malayan Towers.
In 2002, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) allowed MICO to assume responsibility for completing the condominium project; the MOA detailed distribution of net saleable units between ASB and MICO based on their contributions.

On March 11, 2005, Condominium Certificates of Title (CCTs) for 38 units and parking spaces were issued in ASB's name.
Another set of CCTs with identical units but issued in MICO’s name was signed by Espenesin before the release of the titles.
Espenesin had signed both sets of CCTs.
ASB’s counsel objected to the alteration and demanded the Register of Deeds revert the titles back to ASB’s name.
Espenesin explained that he relied on Francis Serrano, who appeared as the legitimate representative of both ASB and MICO, to make corrections in titles as requested. The alteration was allegedly to “correct an error” and not to transfer ownership.

The modification of CCTs was illegal and without court order, violating Section 108 of PD 1529.
Respondents falsified public documents and violated anti-graft laws.
Espenesin was influenced by Serrano, and Yuchengco and Cheng as principals by inducement, participated in the conspiracy.

Respondents denied the charges asserting legitimate correction of errors and that the titles were still drafts or under preparation.
The Ombudsman dismissed Ampil’s complaint stating:

The identity of the rightful owner between ASB and MICO had yet to be determined—thus, the alteration may not necessarily have made the document speak falsely (an element of falsification).
Because of this, there was no probable cause to indict respondents for falsification.
The Ombudsman did not rule on the anti-graft charges under RA 3019.

On administrative charges, the Ombudsman initially found Espenesin guilty of Simple Misconduct and imposed a one-month suspension but later recalled the sanction on reconsideration.
Ampil appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Ombudsman’s absolution of Espenesin on administrative liability grounds.

Whether there was grave abuse of discretion in the Ombudsman’s dismissal of Ampil’s criminal complaint, particularly on anti-graft charges.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of administrative penalties against Espenesin.

Is the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the criminal complaint against respondents for falsification of public documents and RA 3019 violations tainted with grave abuse of discretion for failure to resolve the anti-graft charges?

Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the Ombudsman’s dismissal of administrative liability of Espenesin for alleged misconduct?