G.R. No. 167006-07 - Collantes vs. Marcelo

Danilo D. Collantes, the petitioner, initiated a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
The petition sought to annul and set aside two actions of the Office of the Ombudsman:

A Memorandum dated May 11, 2004, recommending the filing of an Information for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) against several individuals, including petitioner Collantes.
A Supplemental Order dated December 14, 2004, which denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by some of the respondents.

The case involves other respondents such as Hon. Simeon Marcelo (in his capacity as Ombudsman), the Fact Finding Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) represented by Atty. Maria Olivia Elena A. Roxas, and additional DPWH officials.

Virgilio Cervantes owned two parcels of land in Barangay Sampaloc, Tanay, Rizal, covering a total of 59,500 square meters.
In the 1970s, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) appropriated 21,558 square meters of the land for the construction of the Marikina-Infanta Road without demanding or providing just compensation.
In 1998, Cervantes sold the entire parcel (59,500 sq. m.) to R.J. Pamintuan Furnishing Corporation, with the sale effected on March 2, 1999.
The transfer of titles from Cervantes to RJ Pamintuan involved cancellation of the original Transfer Certificate of Titles and the issuance of new ones.

Prior to the title transfer, RJ Pamintuan had already claimed just compensation for the affected land area due to the DPWH’s taking.
DPWH Regional Director Salvador Pleyto requested that the R-PAC fix the “current market value” of the land.
Initially, R-PAC hesitated but eventually set the market value at P606.66 per square meter and fixed a fair market range of approximately P19.75 million to P21.18 million, including consequential damages on the remaining land and trees.
The appraisal was preparatory and recommendatory in nature, designed to assist in negotiating just compensation.

After evaluation, a Deed of Absolute Sale with Quitclaim was executed involving 14,761 square meters at P982.54 per square meter, with the seller renouncing rights to the remaining 6,797 square meters.
A letter-complaint filed by a certain “Gabriela” on July 23, 1999, raised concerns over the anomalous nature of this transaction, prompting the Office of the Ombudsman to conduct a fact-finding investigation.
Multiple fact-finding efforts led to various resolutions including:

A Joint Resolution by Graft Investigation Officer Wilfred L. Pascasio recommending the filing of an Information for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.
A subsequent set-aside of this resolution by a higher officer, resulting in a provisional dismissal pending further evidence.
Revival of the complaints by the FFIB and the eventual filing of additional procedural motions by the respondents.

Petitioner Collantes, as a member of R-PAC, was accused of making an “evidently” high appraisal based on the current market value (1998) instead of the value at the time of taking (1970).
The complaint alleged that his act constituted manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence – elements required under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 – thereby causing undue injury to the government.
The petitioner argued that his function in the R-PAC was merely recommendatory and that the appraisal, being subject to further review by the DPWH and the property owner, did not in itself cause any undue injury.

The Ombudsman, through its investigative officers, determined that there was probable cause to charge petitioner Collantes despite the recommendatory nature of the appraisal process.
Subsequent motions and a joint counter-affidavit by other members of the R-PAC contended that similar cases had been dismissed and that the revival of the case was unwarranted.
Ultimately, petition raised critical issues regarding the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the Ombudsman in light of insufficient evidence.

Whether or not the public respondent (the Ombudsman) gravely abused his discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, when he recommended the filing of an Information for violation against petitioner Collantes for alleged violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act despite the absence of probable cause.
Whether or not the Ombudsman gravely abused his discretion by failing to reconsider the May 11, 2004, Memorandum despite compelling reasons that warranted its reversal.