ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 146399. June 14, 2006]

EDMUNDO SIA versus HON. JULIANO ALBA

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted Hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUNE 14, 2006 .

G.R. No. 146399 (Edmundo Sia versus Hon. Juliano Alba)

For review on certiorari are the Orders [1] cralaw of the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman in Criminal Case No. 25299, which dismissed the case filed against herein respondent for alleged usurpation of a judicial function.

The facts are as follows:

On December 20, 1996, the city treasurer in Roxas City conducted a public auction of certain real properties to settle the realty tax delinquencies of Panay Railways, Inc. in favor of the city government.

Petitioner Edmundo Sia was the highest bidder and awardee, while respondent Juliano Alba was the mayor of Roxas City at the time of the said public auction.

On August 22, 1997, respondent issued Executive Order No. 08-97 [2] cralaw voiding the said public auction for the city treasurer's failure to give due notice to the owner. Respondent likewise directed the return to petitioner of the purchase price with interest, to wit:

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises, and by virtue of the power vested in me as Chief Executive of Roxas City, I do hereby declare the said public auction sale null and void. The City Treasurer is hereby directed to inform Mr. Edmund Sia of this Order and to return the amount representing the purchase price for the aforementioned properties with interest of not more than two (2%) per month from the date of the public auction sale to the date of its return to the bidder as provided for in Section 261 of RA 7160. He is further directed to conduct another public auction sale for the above-mentioned properties in accordance with law. [3] cralaw

Aggrieved, petitioner filed a complaint against respondent for alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. But, the Graft Investigation Officer, in its Resolution dated December 15, 1998 recommended the filing of an Information for usurpation of a judicial function as defined under Article 241 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information reads:

That on or about the 22nd day of August 1997, at Roxas City, Province of Capiz, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above named accused, a public officer, being then the Mayor of Roxas City, in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to office, with deliberate intent, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assume and arrogate unto himself a judicial function by issuing an Executive Order Declaring the Sale at Public Auction of Properties of the Panay Railways, Inc. in favor of Edmund Sia Null and Void, a power and authority vested by law only upon a court of justice, thereby usurping a function of the judicial branch of government.

CONTRARY TO LAW. [4] cralaw

Respondent moved for reconsideration of the December 15, 1998 Resolution. The Graft Investigation Officer denied the said motion on the ground that the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman prohibits the filing of a motion for reconsideration after an Information has been filed.

Undaunted, respondent filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion to refer the case to the Office of the Special Prosecutor. The Sandiganbayan treated it as a motion for reinvestigation and granted respondent 15 days within which to file an amplified motion for reconsideration. Respondent in his amplified motion for reconsideration prayed that the December 15, 1998 Resolution be set aside and the Information filed against him be withdrawn.

The Special Prosecutor, in its assailed Order, dismissed the case against respondent for want of sufficient probable cause, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that for want of sufficient probable cause, this Office has no other alternative but to reconsider its previous stand finding existence of prima facie case of Usurpation of Judicial Function defined and penalized under Art. 241 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby dismisses the case against the herein accused Juliano Alba. [5] cralaw

Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the aforequoted Order, but it was denied for lack of merit. Hence, the instant petition raising the following issues:

1.

WHETHER OR NOT THE RESOLUTION DATED DECEMBER 15, 1998 CAN STILL BE LEGALLY RECONSIDERED.

����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 2.

WHETHER OR NOT THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR/OMBUDSMAN GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN RECONSIDERING THE AFORESAID RESOLUTION. [6] cralaw

Petitioner contends that respondent's motion for reinvestigation was filed out of time and after the Graft Investigation Officer had denied the first motion for reconsideration. Petitioner insists respondent's motion for reinvestigation was in fact a second motion for reconsideration, which is a prohibited pleading. According to petitioner, the December 15, 1998 Resolution has become final with the denial of the first motion for reconsideration. Petitioner argues respondent engaged in forum shopping when he sought to refer the case to the Special Prosecutor. Petitioner intimates that the Special Prosecutor granted respondent's motion for reinvestigation because it was misled that respondent had been deprived of the right to file a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner maintains respondent usurped a judicial function when he voided the public auction.

For his part, respondent counters that the December 15, 1998 Resolution has been mooted by the subject Order of the Special Prosecutor dismissing the case. Respondent posits that the Special Prosecutor has jurisdiction to reconsider the December 15, 1998 Resolution of the Graft Investigation Officer. Further, respondent avers that the Special Prosecutor correctly dismissed the case for lack of prima facie evidence that respondent usurped a judicial function.

We resolve to deny the petition.

Section 7, Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman provides:

Sec. 7. Motion for reconsideration .

a) Only one motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation of an approved order or resolution shall be allowed, the same to be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof with the Office of the Ombudsman, or the Deputy Ombudsman as the case may be.

b) No motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation shall be entertained after the information shall have been filed in court, except upon order of the court wherein the case was filed.

In this case, records show that the Information was filed in the Sandiganbayan on May 10, 1999, which was exactly the same date when the December 15, 1998 Resolution was sent to respondent by registered mail. Thus, respondent could not have received the said resolution before the filing of the Information against him. Consequently, respondent had no real opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the said resolution.

Note that the first motion for reconsideration was denied on the peremptory ground that a motion for reconsideration cannot be entertained once an Information has been filed. The said denial could not have divested respondent of his statutory right to file a motion for reconsideration, be it in effect a second motion for reconsideration. The interest of substantial justice dictates that strict observance of procedural rules be dispensed with in this case. [7] cralaw Thus, the Special Prosecutor cannot be said to have gravely abused his discretion when he acted favorably on respondent's second motion for reconsideration of the December 15, 1998 Resolution.

We have also scoured the records of this case and found no compelling reason to reverse the Special Prosecutor's finding of lack of probable cause. Noteworthy, when respondent voided the public auction for lack of due notice to the owner, he did not usurp a judicial function; respondent merely acted in the exercise of his executive powers as city mayor, which includes setting aside an irregularity committed by the city treasurer. Clearly then, the Special Prosecutor's dismissal of the criminal case against respondent for want of palpable merit was in order.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Orders of the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman in Criminal Case No. 25299, which dismissed the case for alleged usurpation of a judicial function filed against herein respondent, are AFFIRMED.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 47-51, 58-59.

[2] cralaw Id. at 25-26.

[3] cralaw Id. at 26.

[4] cralaw Records, p. 1.

[5] cralaw Rollo, p. 51.

[6] cralaw Id. at 123.

[7] cralaw Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation, G.R. No. 149634, July 6, 2004, 433 SCRA 455, 467-468.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com