Case Digest (G.R. No. 192685)
Facts:
Oscar R. Ampil v. The Hon. Office of the Ombudsman, Policarpio L. Espenesin, Registrar, Register of Deeds, Pasig City, Francis Serrano, Yvonne S. Yuchengco, and Gema O. Cheng, G.R. Nos. 192685 and 199115, July 31, 2013, Supreme Court Second Division, Perez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Oscar R. Ampil (Ampil), an unsecured creditor of one of the ASB Group of Companies, filed a criminal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against then-Registrar of Deeds of Pasig City Policarpio L. Espenesin (Espenesin) and private respondents Francis Serrano, Yvonne S. Yuchengco and Gema O. Cheng. Ampil alleged (a) falsification of public documents under Article 171(6) of the Revised Penal Code and (b) violations of Sections 3(a) and 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), arising from Espenesin’s erasure of the name “ASB Realty Corporation” and substitution with “Malayan Insurance Company” (MICO) in thirty‑eight Condominium Certificates of Title (CCTs) for units in The Malayan Tower. The companies involved in the underlying property transaction were ASB Realty Corporation (ASB) and Malayan Insurance Company (MICO), which had executed a Joint Project Development Agreement, a Contract to Sell, and later a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) governing allocation of net saleable areas.
The Ombudsman conducted a preliminary investigation and issued a Resolution (OMB‑C‑C‑07‑0444‑J) dismissing Ampil’s criminal complaint for lack of probable cause to indict for falsification because, in the Ombudsman’s view, the fourth element of Article 171(6)—that the alteration made the document “speak something false”—had not been established since ownership of the units was unresolved. The Ombudsman did not decide the RA 3019 charges; it later denied Ampil’s motion for reconsideration. Separately, the Ombudsman initially found Espenesin administratively guilty of Simple Misconduct and imposed one month suspension, but on Ampil’s motion for reconsideration the Ombudsman recalled that suspension; the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. SP No. 113171 later affirmed the Ombudsman’s administrative resolution absolving Espenesin.
Ampil filed two petitions with the Supreme Court: a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 (G.R. No. 192685) assailing the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the criminal complaint, and a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 (G.R. No. 199115) contesting the CA’s affirmance of the Ombudsman’s admi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does certiorari lie to correct the Ombudsman’s alleged grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Ampil’s complaint?
- Was the Ombudsman correct to dismiss the falsification charge under Article 171(6) for lack of the fourth element (that the alteration made the document speak something false)?
- Did the Ombudsman commit grave abuse in failing to resolve whether probable cause existed to charge respondents with violations of Sections 3(a) and 3(e) of RA 3019?
- Was the Court of Appeals correct in affirming the Ombudsman’s administrative absolution of Policarpio L. Espenesin, or should Es...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)