Case Summary (G.R. No. 210597)
Applicable Law
The relevant statutes for the case include Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Presidential Decree No. 1096 (National Building Code), as well as Republic Act No. 7916 (Philippine Economic Zone Authority Act), particularly the demolition provisions under Section 14(i).
Background of the Case
On March 12, 2005, Oliveros filed a Sinumpaang Salaysay against the respondents, asserting that they, under the direction of Quindoza, illegally demolished his house on July 1, 2003, without a permit. The case initially entered the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bataan and later involved allegations of forum shopping, as Oliveros's wife had previously filed a similar complaint.
Procedural History
The Provincial Prosecutor initially recommended filing an information against the respondents, but the case was dismissed by the Office of the Ombudsman on September 12, 2011, citing the lack of probable cause. The Ombudsman concluded that the demolition was lawful under Section 14(i) of Republic Act No. 7916, which empowered the respondents to demolish structures without needing a building permit.
Arguments of the Petitioner
Oliveros claimed that the Ombudsman's dismissal constituted a grave abuse of discretion, arguing that the documentary evidence supported his allegations of wrongdoing. He contended that under the provisions of the National Building Code, the demolition was illegal because it was not overseen by the correct authority. Petitioner further contended that the Ombudsman’s analysis incorrectly prioritized Republic Act No. 7916 over Presidential Decree No. 1096, despite the latter offering procedural guidance on demolitions.
Arguments of the Respondents
The Office of the Ombudsman, along with the other respondents, countered that their actions were compliant with the law. They asserted that the demolition did not require a permit under Republic Act No. 7916 and that Oliveros's house was built illegally. Furthermore, respondents emphasized that the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause is generally immune from judicial review unless grave abuse of discretion is demonstrated.
Court's Ruling
The Court upheld that the Office of the Ombudsman has the discretion to determine probable cause and found no grave abuse in its decision to dismiss Oliveros's complaint. The assessment of probable cause is considered an executive function and should not be overturned without substantial e
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 210597)
Case Overview
- Petitioner: Danilo Oliveros y Ibañez
- Respondents: Office of the Ombudsman, Dante M. Quindoza, Dionisio Samen, Ernie Lazo, Sixto Inales, Oscar Igna, Ed Hernandez, Victorio Sunga, Ronald Salvacion, Angel Pineda, Donato Amado, Romeo Galuran, and Elmer Avanzado.
- Case Reference: G.R. No. 210597
- Date of Decision: September 28, 2020
- Decision Writer: Justice Leonen
- Legal Focus: Certiorari regarding the Office of the Ombudsman’s dismissal of a complaint for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Background of the Case
- On March 12, 2005, Oliveros filed a complaint against the respondents for allegations of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
- The complaint arose after a demolition incident on July 1, 2003, when Engr. Samen and approximately 20 men informed Oliveros's wife that their house would be demolished without a permit or court order.
- Respondents argued that Oliveros was guilty of forum shopping, as his wife had previously filed a similar complaint.
Procedural History
- The case was initially docketed as I.S. No. 05-239 at the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bataan, which set it for preliminary investigation.
- A Joint Counter-Affidavit was filed by the respondents, asserting jurisdictional issues due to prior proceedings in Criminal Case No. 03-7760.
- The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor recommended filing an information against the respondents, but subsequent reviews led to the termination of Oliveros's case to avoid duplicity.
- The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint on September 12, 2011, a