Facts:
The case is
Crispin Burgos D. Bariata v. The Honorable Ombudsman Conchita C. Carpiomorales, Joselito A. Ojeda, and Dulce R. Quinto-Ojeda, G.R. No. 234640, February 01, 2023, Supreme Court Third Division, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner
Crispin Burgos D. Bariata filed a Complaint‑Affidavit on March 23, 2015 charging then‑Municipal Mayor
Joselito A. Ojeda (and his wife
Dulce R. Quinto‑Ojeda) with unexplained wealth and failure to file true and detailed Sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) for 2010–2013, in violation of
R.A. No. 3019 (Secs. 7, 8) and
R.A. No. 6713 (Secs. 7, 8, 9), and with falsification/perjury under the Revised Penal Code. Petitioner alleged numerous undeclared real properties, business interests (including shareholdings in Katigbak Enterprises/DCG Radio‑TV Network), vehicles, and frequent foreign travel inconsistent with respondent’s reported income.
Respondent Ojeda answered with a Counter‑Affidavit denying wrongdoing. He produced documentary defenses: deeds of assignment/sale (including a Deed of Assignment of shares dated January 10, 2006 and a Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 16, 2005), Notices of Levy on several titles (showing writs of execution in favor of BPI), certifications of tax payments, and explanations that certain alleged assets were not his to declare (e.g., properties in custodia legis, donated or waived interests, or owned by emancipated/married children). Petitioner filed a Reply‑Affidavit, a Supplemental Complaint‑Affidavit, and both parties submitted position papers.
The Office of the
Ombudsman consolidated the administrative and criminal matters and, by Joint Resolution dated October 19, 2015, dismissed both the criminal and administrative complaints for lack of merit, finding petitioner failed to prove non‑declaration, that some properties predated respondent’s incumbency, that some parcels had been validly sold or donated, and that there was no evidence of ownership of the alleged vehicles. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied in a Joint Order dated J...
(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to the Supreme Court the proper remedy to assail the Ombudsman’s Joint Resolution that dismissed both the criminal and administrative complaints?
- Did the Ombudsman commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint for lack of probable cause (i.e., was there sufficient evidence of unexplained wealth or deliberate non‑dec...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: