Case Digest (G.R. No. 159922)
Facts:
Armando F. Chan v. Court of Appeals, Hon. Simeon V. Marcelo, et al., G.R. No. 159922, April 28, 2005, Supreme Court Second Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Armando F. Chan, then Municipal Vice‑Mayor of Lavezares, Northern Samar, filed an Affidavit‑Complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman charging four Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) officials — Antonio A. Odejerte (District Engineer), Serafin V. Perez, Jr. (Asst. District Engineer), David P. Adongay, Jr. (Chief, Construction Section), and Virgilio G. Aleria (Asst. Construction Engineer) — with illegal use of public funds, violations of R.A. No. 3019 and related offenses in connection with a DPWH project. The complaint alleged that a January 19, 1998 Notice of Award for a five‑seater public toilet (contract price P239,126.95) was realigned and implemented as barangay sports facilities on private land, that the contract actually described only excavation (cut and fill), and that the contract was completed early yet paid in full.Respondents submitted counter‑affidavits. Adongay and Aleria asserted that the lot had been donated by Raymundo A. Daza to Barangay Urdaneta (Deed of Donation dated October 1997) and accepted by the barangay, that the DBM approved the realignment, and that the work constituted site development and an initial phase of sports facilities later implemented by the municipal government; they attached deeds, resolutions, photos and certificates of acceptance. Odejerte adopted those defenses. Petitioner replied, disputing the deed’s beneficiary (he claimed it favored Barangay Enriqueta), contesting the tax declaration and timing/authority of the Sangguniang Bayan’s acceptance, and arguing the DBM realignment contravened DBM Circular No. 445; he later added Daza, Donato Parina and Bienvenido Cagsawa as supplemental respondents for alleged falsification and conspiracy.
On October 27, 2001, Graft Investigation Officer I Alvin Butch E. Canares, approved by the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, issued a Resolution recommending dismissal for lack of probable cause, reasoning that respondents’ documentary and photographic evidence rebutted the non‑existence charge, that valuation disputes were factual and petitioner’s computations were self‑serving, and that the realignment was supported by DBM approval. A motion for reconsideration was denied on February 19, 2002.
Petitioner filed a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals (June 11, 2002) assailing the Ombudsman resolutions on several grounds (failure to resolve issues, failure to summon supplemental respondents, erroneous factual findings, alleged excessive payment, and improper realignment). On September 4, 2003 the Court of Appeals denied due course and dismissed the petition, holding petitioner failed to show grave abuse of discretion and that the matters raised were factual in nature and thus not proper for certiorari review.
Petitioner brought a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45, arguing (1) the CA violated Section 14, ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals violate Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution by failing to clearly and distinctly state the facts and law on which its decision was based?
- Did the petitioner establish grave abuse of discretion by the Office of the Ombudsman sufficient to justify judicial intervention under certiorari?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in upholding the Ombudsman’s dismissal for lack of probable cause to charge the private respondents with violations of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)