G.R. No. 210597 - Oliveros y Ibanez vs. Office of the Ombudsman

Petitioner Danilo Oliveros y IbaAez filed a complaint alleging that his house within the Bataan Economic Zone was demolished improperly.
The complaint was anchored on the violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and, in part, on issues regarding the applicable demolition laws.

On July 1, 2003, approximately 20 men, led by Engineer Dionisio Samen, arrived at Oliveros’s residence and ordered his wife to prepare the family’s belongings for demolition.
When questioned about the legal basis for the demolition, Engr. Samen responded that no court order was required as they were “may sarili silang batas,” and indicated that the demolition was executed pursuant to the order of Dante M. Quindoza, the Bataan Economic Zone administrator.

On March 12, 2005, Oliveros filed a Sinumpaang Salaysay against Quindoza, Engr. Samen, and other respondents, accusing them of acting illegally under the guise of governmental authority.
The case was initially lodged with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bataan and was subsequently set for preliminary investigation under Criminal Docket I.S. No. 05-239.

Respondents argued that Oliveros was guilty of forum shopping, noting that his wife had previously filed a similar complaint on July 31, 2003, which had been dismissed due to jurisdictional issues (the case falling under the Sandiganbayan’s purview).
The case records were later transmitted to the Office of the Ombudsman, first docketed as OMB-L-C-05-0613-F, and then subject to further review by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon.

On April 25, 2007, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor recommended filing charges against the respondents, but soon after, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon terminated Oliveros’s case to prevent duplicative or conflicting findings in two separate cases lodged by the spouses.
Oliveros appealed the termination by moving for reconsideration before the Office of the Ombudsman.
On September 12, 2011, the Office of the Ombudsman reversed the earlier recommendation and dismissed Oliveros’s complaint for lack of probable cause.
A subsequent Motion for Reconsideration filed on May 4, 2012, was denied in the Office of the Ombudsman’s October 8, 2013 Order.

Aggrieved by the dismissal, Oliveros filed a Petition for Certiorari challenging the Office of the Ombudsman’s ruling on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.
The petition raised substantive issues regarding the proper application of the laws on demolition, particularly whether the demolition should have been governed by Republic Act No. 7916 (the specific law for PEZA zones) or by Presidential Decree No. 1096 (the National Building Code).
The petition also contained arguments that the demolition was illegal for not complying with the summary demolition procedure outlined in Republic Act No. 7916, noting that the actual demolition was executed by Engr. Samen rather than by the designated authorized representative, Dante M. Quindoza.

The respondents, including high-ranking officials and employees connected to the demolition order, contended that Oliveros’s complaint was both procedurally and substantively flawed.
They maintained that the demolition was executed in accordance with Section 14(i) of Republic Act No. 7916, which does not require a permit for demolishing structures within a PEZA-administered area.
Respondents further argued that the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor and later the Office of the Ombudsman had acted within their jurisdiction, and the filing (or non-filing) of an information was a discretionary function.

The judicial proceedings witnessed several orders and directives regarding the submission of comments and the verification of respondents’ current addresses, with instances of non-compliance leading to fines and orders to show cause.
Issues concerning the actual status (such as the death of a respondent) and retirement or absence of others were noted and addressed in various resolutions by the Court during the certiorari proceedings.

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in dismissing Oliveros’s complaint for lack of probable cause.

The petitioner argues that the documentary evidence supports a finding of probable cause that respondents violated Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and Presidential Decree No. 1096.
The petitioner contends that the demolition was illegal because it did not comply with the summary demolition requirements under Section 14(i) of Republic Act No. 7916, particularly noting a departure from the authorized chain of delegation.

Which legal regime governs the demolition of structures within a PEZA-administered area:

Whether the specific provisions of Republic Act No. 7916, as applied by the Office of the Ombudsman, prevail over the National Building Code under Presidential Decree No. 1096, or vice versa.
The petitioner’s argument that, regarding the manner of demolition, the absence of clear delegation in the summary demolition process renders the demolition illegal.

The scope and reviewability by the courts of the finding of probable cause by the Office of the Ombudsman, particularly under the principle of separation of powers.