6/14/2017 G.R. No.

144492

THIRDDIVISION

LUWALHATIR.ANTONINO, G.R.No.144492
Petitioner,
Present:
versus
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.,
Chairperson,
HON.OMBUDSMANANIANOA. AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
DESIERTO,ROSALITAT.NUEZ, CHICONAZARIO,
AUGUSTUSL.MOMONGAN,JUDGE NACHURA,and
ABEDNEGOO.ADRE,PEDROG. REYES,JJ.
NALANGAN,ASTERIAE.CRUZABRA,
JULIOC.DIAZandAGAPITO Promulgated:
BORINAGA,
Respondents. December18,2008

xx

DECISION

NACHURA,J.:

[1]
BeforethisCourtisaPetitionforCertiorari underRule65oftheRulesofCivilProcedurefiled
by petitioner, former Congresswoman Luwalhati R. Antonino (petitioner) of the First
CongressionalDistrictofSouthCotabatowhichincludesGeneralSantosCity(city),assailingthat
[2]
portion of the Resolution dated January 20, 1999 of the Office of the Ombudsman
(Ombudsman)dismissingthecaseagainstprivaterespondents,formercityMayorRosalitaT.Nuez
(Mayor Nuez), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Regional Executive
DirectorforRegionXIAugustusL.Momongan(Momongan),RegionalTrialCourt(RTC)Judge
Abednego O. Adre (Judge Adre), former City Legal Officer Pedro G. Nalangan III (Nalangan),
RegisterofDeedsAsteriaE.Cruzabra(Cruzabra),LandManagementOfficerIIIoftheProvincial
EnvironmentandNaturalResourcesOffice(PENRO)ofSouthCotabatoJulioC.Diaz(Diaz)and
Regional Technical Director of the DENR for Region XI Agapito Borinaga (Borinaga)
(respondents).

Thefacts,asnarratedbytheOmbudsman,areasfollows:

le:///Users/rosean/Desktop/12-%20Antonino%20v%20Desierto.htm 1/19
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 144492

PresidentialProclamationNo.168wasissuedbythenPresidentDiosdadoMacapagalonOctober3,
1963(Record,pp.2324).Thepertinentprovisionofwhichstatesthat:

do hereby withdraw from sale or settlement and reserve for recreational and health resort site
purposes,undertheadministrationofthemunicipalityofGeneralSantos,subjecttoprivaterights,if
anytherebe,acertainparceloflandofthepublicdomainsituatedinthesaidmunicipalityandmore
particularlydescribedasfollows:

Mr1160DMunicipalReservation

TheMunicipalGovernmentofGeneralSantosMagsaysayPark

Aparcelofland(asshownonplanMr1160D)situatedinthebarrioofDadiangas,Municipalityof
GeneralSantos,provinceofCotabato.xxxcontaininganareaof52,678squaremeters.

OnJanuary22,1968,RepublicActNo.5412(Record,pp.2526),knownastheCharteroftheCity
of General Santos was enacted creating the City of General Santos where it is provided that The
NationalGovernmentherebycedestotheCityofGeneralSantostheownershipandpossessionto
all lands of the public domain within the city.Later, said Act was amended by Republic Act No.
6386onAugust16,1971(Record,pp.2728)whereinitreadthatThedispositionofalllandsofthe
public domain within the city shall be in accordance with the provisions of Commonwealth Act
Numbered One hundred fortyone, as amended: Provided, That all incomes and receipts derived
fromsuchdispositionshallaccrueexclusivelytothecityasprovidedinthisAct.

On the other hand, the property subject of Presidential Proclamation No. 168 was thereafter
subdividedintothreelots,namely:LotY1withanareaof18,695squaremeters,LotXcontaining
15,020 square meters and Lot Y2 with 18,963 square meters, or a total of 52,678 square meters
whichisstillequivalenttotheoriginalarea.

However, on February 25, 1983, former President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation No.
2273amendingProclamationNo.168(Record,pp.2931),whichprovidesthat:

do hereby exclude from the operation of Proclamation No. 168 dated October 3,
1963,whichestablishedtherecreationalandhealthresortreservationsituatedinthe
Municipality of General Santos, now General Santos City, Island of Mindanao,
certain portions of the land embraced therein and declare the same open to
disposition under the provisions of the Public Land Act, which parcels of land are
moreparticularlydescribedasfollows:

LotY1,MR1160D
(MagsaysayPark)

A PARCEL OF LAND (Lot Y1, MR1160D, Magsaysay Park) situated in the
MunicipalityofGeneralSantos,nowGeneralSantosCity,IslandofMindanao.xxx
containing an area of EIGHTEEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED NINETYFIVE
(18,695)SQUAREMETERS.xxx

LotY2,MR1160D
(MagsaysayPark)

A PARCEL OF LAND (Lot Y2, MR1160D, Magsaysay Park) situated in the
MunicipalityofGeneralSantos,nowGeneralSantosCity,IslandofMindanao.xxx
containinganareaofEIGHTEENTHOUSANDNINEHUNDREDSIXTYTHREE
(18,963)SQUAREMETERS.xxx

le:///Users/rosean/Desktop/12-%20Antonino%20v%20Desierto.htm 2/19
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 144492

Thus, leaving only Lot X as that covered by Presidential Proclamation No. 168 and is therefore
reservedforrecreationalandhealthresortsitepurposes.

Asaresultofsuchexclusion,theHeirsofCabaloKusopappliedforFreePatentwiththeDistrict
Land Office and consequently Certificates of Title were issued sometime in 1983. In 1984, two
caseswerefiledbythelocalgovernmentofGeneralSantosCityagainstthesaidHeirsofKusopfor
DeclarationofNullityofTitlesand,ontheotherhand,theHeirsofKusopfiledacaseagainstthe
saidlocalgovernmentforInjunctionandDamages.The said three cases were consolidated before
the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City, Branch 22, presided by respondent Judge
AbednegoAdre.

OnMay23,1991,theSangguniangPanlungsodofGeneralSantosCitypassedResolutionNo.87,
Seriesof1991,entitledResolutionApprovingtheCompromiseAgreementtobeenteredintobyand
between the City Government of General Santos represented by the City Mayor and the Heirs of
Cabalo Kusop, re: Magsaysay Park (Record, pp. 15061507). Significant provisions of the said
CompromiseAgreement(Record,pp.3339)statethat:

1.ThesubjectmatterofthisagreementareLotsY1,MR1160DandY2,MR1160
D with combined area of THIRTYSEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY
EIGHT (37,658) SQUARE METERS, and from this the HEIRS AND
BENEFICIARIESshallreceiveatotalnetareaofTWENTYTHOUSAND(20,000)
SQUARE METERS and to the CITY shall pertain the remainder of SEVENTEEN
THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTYEIGHT (17,658) SQUARE METERS which
ifaddedtoLotX,MR1160D,previouslydonatedtotheCITYasstatedinpar.7
oftheWHEREASclause,withanareaofFIFTEENTHOUSANDANDTWENTY
(15,020)SQUAREMETERS(locatedinbetweenLotsY1andY2),theCITYshall
retain a total area of THIRTY TWO THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SEVENTY
EIGHT(32,678)SQUAREMETERS.

Said Compromise Agreement was signed by respondent City Mayor Rosalita Nuez, assisted by
respondentPepitoNalanganIII,andtheheirsandbeneficiariesofCabaloKusop.

AsaconsequenceofthesaidCompromiseAgreement,respondentJudgeAbednegoAdreissuedan
Order(Record,pp.4052),coveringthethreependingcases,onMay6,1992,thedispositiveportion
ofwhichstates:

ACCORDINGLY,findingtheforegoingCompromiseAgreementinconformitywith
Article 6 in correlation with Article 1306 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the
sameisherebyAPPROVEDandADOPTEDasjudgmentinthesecases.Theparties
areenjoinedtofaithfullycomplytherewith.

AWritofExecutionwasaccordinglyissuedonNovember28,1995.

However,onJuly22,1997,actingupontheMotionforExclusionofanExtraneousSubjectfromthe
CoverageoftheJudgmentthereofandtheMotionforIssuanceofClarificatoryOrdersubmittedby
theHeirsofCabaloKusopandjointlybyCENROfficerandRegionalTechnicalDirectorofDENR,
respectively,respondentJudgeissuedanotherOrder[assailedRTCOrder](Record,pp.5359)inthe
abovecitedthreecases,statingthat:

ACCORDINGLY,basedonalltheforegoingfacts,lawandjurisprudence,themotionforexclusion
of Lot X, MR1160D comprising an area of 15,020 SQUARE METERS is GRANTED. The
movants heirs of Kusop are, however, enjoined to donate to the City of General Santos in
keepingwiththeintentandspiritofthecompromiseagreement.

le:///Users/rosean/Desktop/12-%20Antonino%20v%20Desierto.htm 3/19
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 144492

On July 23, 1997, the following private respondents applied for Miscellaneous Sales Patent over
portionsofLotX,tobedividedasfollows(refertoaffidavits,Record,pp.6075):

Applicants Areaapplied

1.MadGuaybar 999sq.m.

2.OliverGuaybar 999sq.m.

3.JonathanGuaybar 999sq.m.

4.AlexGuaybar 999sq.m.

5.JackGuiwan 999sq.m.

6.NicolasYnot 999sq.m.

7.CarlitoFlavianoIII 999sq.m.

8.JolitoPoralan 999sq.m.

9.MiguelaCabiao 999sq.m.

10.JoseRommelSaludar 999sq.m.

11.JoelTeves 999sq.m.

12.RicoAltizo 999sq.m.

13.JohnnyMedillo 999sq.m.

14.MartinSaycon 999sq.m.

15.ArseniodelosReyes,Jr. 510sq.m.and,

16.JoseBomez 524sq.m.

The following day, July 24, 1997, public respondent Cesar Jonillo, as Deputy Land Management
Inspector, recommended for the approval of the survey authority requested by the abovenamed
privaterespondentsforLotX(Record,p.418).

Withinthesameday,theSurveyAuthoritywasissuedtoprivaterespondentsbypublicrespondent
CENROfficerRenatoRivera(Record,p.419).Asaresultofwhich,LotXwassubdividedinto16
lots(refertosubdivisionplan,Record,p.32).

OnAugust 2, 1997, respondent City Mayor Rosalita T. Nuez, assisted by respondent City Legal
Officer Pedro Nalangan III issued 1st Indorsements (refer to application documents, Record, pp.
421500) addressed to CENRO, DENR for portions of Lot X applied by private respondents and
statedthereinthatthisofficeinterposesnoobjectiontowhateverlegalproceedingsyourofficemay
pursueonapplicationcoveringportionsthereofaftertheRegionalTrialCourt,GeneralSantosCity,
Branch22excludedLotX,MR1160DfromthecoverageoftheCompromiseJudgmentdatedMay
6,1992persaidcourtsorderdatedJuly22,1997.

Thereupon, public respondents Cesar Jonillo and City Assessor Leonardo Dinopol, together with
recommendation for approval from respondent Rivera, submitted an appraisal of lots X1 to X16
le:///Users/rosean/Desktop/12-%20Antonino%20v%20Desierto.htm 4/19
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 144492

stating therein the appraisal amount of P100.00 per square meter and existing improvements of
residentiallighthouseperlotwithanappraisedvaluerangingfromP20,000.00toP50,000.00(refer
toapplicationpapers,Record,pp.421500).

Subsequently,onAugust4,1997,respondentCesarJonillopreparedaletterreportaddressedtothe
RegionalExecutiveDirectorofDENRforeachofthesixteen(16)applicantsrecommendingforthe
private sale of the subject lots to the abovenamed applicantsrespondents, without public auction
(refertosampleletterreportofrecommendationinfavorofRicoAltizo,Record,p.77).Respondent
CENROfficer,RenatoRivera,alsoissuedrecommendationlettersforeachofthesixteenapplicants
addressedtothePENROfficerfortheapprovaloftheappraisalofthesubjectlotsandoftheprivate
sale(pleaserefertosamplerecommendationletterinfavorofRicoAltiz[o],Record,p.78).

AnoticeofsalewasissuedbyrespondentJulioDiazalsoonthesamedatestatingthereinthaton
September5,1997thesubjectlot/swillbesold(Record,p.79).

OnSeptember18,1997,thefollowingCertificatesofTitleswereissuedbytheRegisterofDeedsof
General Santos City, respondent Asteria Cruzabra, which titles were also signed by respondent
AugustusMomongan,asDENRRegionalExecutiveDirector,towit:

NameofOwner OCTNo. LotNo. Record
PageNo.

1.MadGuaybar P6393A X1 8082

2.OliverGuaybar P6392 X2 8385

3.JonathanGuaybar P6389A X3 8688

4.AlexGuaybar P6393 X4 8991

5.JackGuiwan P6399 X5 9294

6.NicolasYnot P6388A X6 9597

7.CarlitoFlavianoIII P6389 X7 98100

8.JolitoPoralan P6391 X8 101103

9.MiguelaCabiao P6392A X9 104106

10.JoseRommelSaludar P6388 X10 107109

11.JoelTeves P6396 X11 110112

12.RicoAltizo P6395 X12 113115

13.JohnnyMedillo P6390 X13 116117

14.MartinSaycon P6394A X14 118120

15.ArseniodelosReyes P6395A X15 121123

16.JoseBomez P6394 X16 124127.

le:///Users/rosean/Desktop/12-%20Antonino%20v%20Desierto.htm 5/19
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 144492

Sometime on September 24 and 25, 1997, except for lots X6, X7, X15 and X16, the above
named registered owners sold their lots, through their attorneyinfact, respondent Atty. Nilo
Flaviano, to the AFPRetirement and Separation Benefits System (AFPRSBS) in the amount of
Two Million Nine Hundred NinetySeven Thousand Pesos (P2,997,000.00) per 999 sq. m. lot
(Record,pp.127150).Then,TransferCertificateofTitleNos.T81051to81062wereissuedinthe
nameofthevendeeonSeptember25,1997(Record,pp.151173).

Ontheotherhand,theregisteredownersoflotnumbersX6andX7executedaDeedofExchange
withAFPRSBS,representedbyrespondentJoseRamiscal,Jr.,consentingtotheexchangeoflots
X6andX7withlotsY1A1andY1A2,respectively,thelattertwolotsbeingownedbyAFP
RSBS (Record, pp. 175178). While lots X15 and X16 were exchanged with one office unit or
[3]
condounittobegivenorcededtorespondentNiloFlaviano(Record,pp.179182).


[4]
Based on the foregoing, petitioner filed a verified complaintaffidavit before the Ombudsman
against the respondents together with Cesar Jonillo (Jonillo), Renato Rivera (Rivera), Mad
Guaybar, Oliver Guaybar, Jonathan Guaybar, Alex Guaybar, Jack Guiwan, Carlito Flaviano III,
Nicolas Ynot, Jolito Poralan, Miguela Cabiao, Jose Rommel Saludar, Joel Teves, Rico Altizo,
Johnny Medillo, Martin Saycon, Arsenio de los Reyes, and Jose Bomez (Mad Guaybar and his
companions),Gen.JoseRamiscal,Jr.(Gen.Ramiscal),WilfredoPabalan(Pabalan),andAtty.Nilo
Flaviano (Atty. Flaviano) (indicted) for violation of Paragraphs (e), (g) and (j), Section 3 of
[5]
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, as amended, and for malversation of public funds or property
throughfalsificationofpublicdocuments.

TheOmbudsman'sRuling

In the assailed Resolution dated January 20, 1999, the Ombudsman held that Mayor Nuez and
Nalangan, among others, entered into the Compromise Agreement on behalf of the city and
pursuanttotheauthoritygrantedtothembytheSangguniangPanlungsodbyvirtueofResolution
No. 87 hence, it is not the sole responsibility of Mayor Nuez and Nalangan but of the entire
SangguniangPanlungsod.Moreover,theOmbudsmanopinedthatthevalidityoftheCompromise
AgreementhadbeensettledwhentheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG)andtheRTCfoundit
tobeinorder.TheOmbudsmanalsoruledthattheOrderofJudgeAdrewasmadeinaccordance
with the facts of the case, while Diaz, Borinaga, Momongan and Cruzabra were found to have
regularlyperformedtheirofficialfunctions.Accordingly,thechargesagainsttherespondentswere
dismissed.Thus,thecasewasdisposedinthiswise:

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Office finds and so holds that the following
crimes were committed and that respondents, whose names appear below, are probably guilty
thereof:
le:///Users/rosean/Desktop/12-%20Antonino%20v%20Desierto.htm 6/19
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 144492

1. CESAR JONILLO sixteen (16) counts of Falsification of public document to the sixteen (16)
recommendationreportssubmitted

2.RENATORIVERAsixteen(16)countsofFalsificationofpublicdocumentrelativetothesixteen
(16)reportssubmitted,alldatedAugust4,1997

3.MADGUAYBAR,OLIVERGUAYBAR,JONATHANGUAYBAR,ALEXGUAYBAR,JACK
GUIWAN,CARLITOFLAVIANOIII,NICOLASYNOT,JOLITOPORALAN,MIGUELACABI
AO, JOSE ROMMEL SALUDAR, JOEL TEVES, RICO ALTIZO, JOHNNY MED[I]LLO,
MARTIN SAYCON, ARSENIO DE LOS REYES, and JOSE BOMEZ in conspiracy with public
respondentsCESARJONILLOandRENATORIVERAone(1)counteachforprivaterespondents
andsixteen(16)countseachforpublicrespondentsforviolationofSection3(e)ofRA3019

4.JOSERAMISCAL,JR.,WILFREDOPABALAN,NILOFLAVIANOasconspiratorsfortwelve
(12)countsoffalsificationofpublicdocumentsrelativetothetwelve(12)unilateralDeedsofSale

5.MADGUAYBAR,OLIVERGUAYBAR,JONATHANGUAYBAR,ALEXGUAYBAR,JACK
GUIWAN, JOLITO PORALAN, MIGUELA CABIAO, JOSE ROMMEL SALUDAR, [J]OEL
TEVES, RICO ALTIZO, JOHNNY MEDILLO, MARTIN SAYSON one (1) count each as
conspiratorinthefalsificationofpublicdocumentrelativetothecorrespondingunilateralDeedof
Saleexecutedbytheiragentintheirbehalf

6.JOSERAMISCAL,JR.,WILFREDOPABALANandNILOFLAVIANOtwelve(12)countsof
violationofsection3(e)ofRA3019forshortchangingthegovernmentinnthecorrectamountof
taxesdueforthesaleofLotXtoAFPRSBSand

7.MADGUAYBAR,OLIVERGUAYBAR,JONATHANGUAYBAR,ALEXGUAYBAR,JACK
GUIWAN, JOLITO PORALAN, MIGUELA CABIAO, JOSE ROMMEL SALUDAR, [J]OEL
TEVES,RICOALTIZO,JOHNNYMEDILLO,MARTINSAYSONone(1)counteachofviolation
ofsection3(e)ofRA3019asconspiratorinshortchangingthegovernmentinthepaymentoftaxes
forthesaleofLotXtoAFPRSBS.

Let the herein attached Informations against aforementioned respondents be filed with the proper
courts.

Charges against respondents ROSALITA NUEZ, AUGUSTUS MOMONGAN, ABEDNEGO
ADRE, ASTERIA CRUZABRA, PEDRO NALANGAN III, JULIO DIAZ and AGAPITO
BORINAGAareherebyDISMISSED,withoutprejudicetothefilingofcriminalcasesagainst
private respondents, for offenses committed not in conspiracy with the herein public
respondents,bytheproperpartiesininterest.

[6]
SORESOLVED.


OnFebruary4,2000,petitionerfiledaMotionforReconsiderationwhichwas,however,deniedby
[7]
the Ombudsman in his Order dated April 26, 2000. The Ombudsman held that since the
criminal Informations were already filed against the aforementioned indicted and the cases were
already pending before the Sandiganbayan and the regular courts of General Santos City, the
Ombudsmanhadlostjurisdictionoverthesaidcase.

le:///Users/rosean/Desktop/12-%20Antonino%20v%20Desierto.htm 7/19
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 144492

TheSoleIssue

Hence,thisPetition,onthesolegroundthat:

THE OMBUDSMAN COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AMOUNTING TO
LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS PROSECUTORY
FUNCTIONS, BY DISMISSING THE CHARGES AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS DESPITE
CLEARANDCONVINCINGEVIDENCEOFDIRECTPARTICIPATIONANDINVOLVEMENT
IN THE CONSPIRACY TO CHEAT AND DEFRAUD THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF
GENERAL SANTOS CITY THROUGH THE ILLEGAL DISPOSITION OF LOT X OF THE
[8]
MAGSAYSAYPARKINVIOLATIONOFLAWANDITSCHARTER.


Petitioner avers that the Ombudsman ignored substantial evidence pointing to the existence of a
conspiracy among all the respondents and those indicted, which led to the illegal and fraudulent
dispositionofLotXoftheMagsaysayPark.Toproveherclaimofagrandconspiracy,petitioner
outlinestheindividualparticipation,cooperationandinvolvementofeachrespondent,asfollows:

1. TheassailedRTCOrderissuedbyJudgeAdreonJuly22,1997waspartofthegrand
schemeandwasmadethebasisforthefilingofthemiscellaneoussalesapplicationsofMad
Guaybar and his companions. The same Order was likewise used by Mayor Nuez and
Nalangan as the reason for interposing no objection to the said applications. The assailed
RTCOrderwasissuedbyJudgeAdrealmostfive(5)yearsafterhisJudgmentbasedonthe
Compromise Agreement had long become final thus, it was issued with grave abuse of
discretionandingrossignoranceofthelaw.JudgeAdre,therefore,violatedSection3(e)of
R.A.No.3019.

2. MayorNuezandNalangankneworoughttohaveknown,byreasonoftheirrespective
officesandasadministratorsofthepropertiesofthecity,thatLotXoftheMagsaysayPark
isownedbythecityandreservedashealthandrecreationsite.Yet,Nalangan'sComment,
filedbeforeJudgeAdreissuedtheassailedRTCOrder,statedthatperverification,therewas
no existing donation from the Heirs of Cabalo Kusop to the city. Likewise, in their 1st
Indorsement dated August 2, 1997, instead of opposing the applications of Mad Guaybar
and his companions, Mayor Nuez and Nalangan endorsed the same and interposed no
objectionthereto.SaidIndorsementwaspartofthegrandconspiracyandwasutilizedasa
front for the resale of the said property to AFPRSBS, to the injury of the city. Petitioner
submitsthatMayorNuezandNalanganalsoviolatedSection3(e)ofR.A.No.3019.
le:///Users/rosean/Desktop/12-%20Antonino%20v%20Desierto.htm 8/19
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 144492

3.AfterMayorNuezandNalanganissuedtheir1stIndorsementonAugust2,1997andafter
JonillosubmittedhisfalsifiedreportonAugust4,1997,Diaz,onthesamedate,scheduled
thesaleofLotXtoMadGuaybarandhiscompanionsonSeptember5, 1997.Thus, Diaz
issuednoticesofsaleofthesubdividedlotsofLotXonSeptember5,1997withoutpublic
auctionandatthedisadvantageouspricerecommendedbyRivera.Therefore,Diaz,asaco
conspirator,shouldbesimilarlychargedwithJonilloandRiveraforviolationofSection3(e)
ofR.A.No.3019andforfalsificationofpublicdocuments.

4. Borinaga,conspiringwithRivera,filedonJune9,1997 the Motion for Issuance of a
ClarificatoryOrderbeforeJudgeAdre,whichledtotheissuancebythelatteroftheassailed
RTC Order. Borinaga and Rivera likewise represented to the RTC that upon verification,
they did not find in the records any deed of donation executed by the Heirs of Cabalo
Kusop.Borinagashouldbeheldliableasanactiveparticipantinagrandschemetodefraud
thecity.

5.Momongan,bythenatureofhisoffice,knewthatLotXisnotdisposableandalienableand
is,therefore,notapropersubjectofasalespatentapplication.Despitesuchknowledgeand
based on the falsified reports of Jonillo and Rivera, Momongan allowed Lot X to be
subdividedandsoldtoMadGuaybarandhiscompanionsbyapprovingtheirmiscellaneous
sales application and issuing the Original Certificates of Title (OCTs) covering the
subdivided lots of Lot X. In sum, Momongan adopted as his own the false reports, and
granted unwarranted benefit and advantage to Mad Guaybar and his companions, to the
injuryofthecity.

6. While the function of Cruzabra in the registration of documents and titles may be
consideredasministerial,thecircumstancesunderwhichthetitleswereissuedinthenames
of Mad Guaybar and his companions and eventually, in the name of AFPRSBS, indicate
thatCruzabrawasawareandwaspartofthegrandconspiracytodefraudthecity.Eachof
thesixteen(16)OCTswastranscribedandsignedbyCruzabraonSeptember22,1997. On
the same date, Atty. Flaviano claimed and received the owners' copies of the OCTs Mad
GuaybarandhiscompanionsexecutedaJointSpecialPowerofAttorney(SPA)authorizing
Atty.Flavianotobetheirattorneyinfact,forthepurposeofsellingtheirrespectivelotsand
Cruzabra registered and annotated said SPA in their respective titles. On September 25,
1997,Atty.FlavianoregisteredwithCruzabratwelve(12)DeedsofAbsoluteSaleinfavor

le:///Users/rosean/Desktop/12-%20Antonino%20v%20Desierto.htm 9/19
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 144492

of AFPRSBS, after paying the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) on the same day the
capital gains tax and documentary stamp tax due thereon. On the same day, Cruzabra
canceled the OCTs and issued, in lieu thereof, twelve (12) Transfer Certificates of Title
(TCTs)infavorofAFPRSBS.Theremainingfour(4)lotsweretransferredandregistered
inthenameofAFPRSBSonOctober10,1997byvirtueofdeedsofexchangeexecutedby
theregisteredownersinfavoroftheformer.PetitionersubmitsthatCruzabracouldnothave
beenunawareoftherestrictionsinstead,sheallowedthetransferandregistrationofthesaid
lots to AFPRSBS so swiftly, that it could only be interpreted as part of the scheme to
[9]
defraudthecity.

In sum, petitioner ascribes to the Ombudsman grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of his
investigatory and prosecutory functions, by completely ignoring and disregarding the pieces of
substantial evidence which clearly establish the existence of a common design among the
respondentsandthoseindictedinthefraudulentsaleanddispositionofLotXoftheMagsaysay
Park.

On the other hand, respondents separately raise their respective defenses against petitioner's
claims,asfollows:

1. TheOmbudsman,throughtheOfficeoftheSpecialProsecutor(OSP),contendsthat,in
effect, petitioner is asking this Court to review the pieces of evidence gathered by the
Ombudsmanduringthepreliminaryinvestigation.Thisisnotproper.InEspinosav.Officeof
[10] [11]
theOmbudsman andYoungv.OfficeoftheOmbudsman, thisCourtaccordedhighest
respect for the factual findings of the Ombudsman, absent a clear case of grave abuse of
discretion.TheOSPclaimsthattheOmbudsmandidnotcommitgraveabuseofdiscretion
because the respondents, based on their counteraffidavits, have valid and legal
[12]
justifications,sufficientfortheOmbudsmantoexculpatethemfromthecharges.

2. Cruzabra avers that there is no showing that conspiracy exists between her and other
respondents charged before the Ombudsman. Petitioner's allegations with respect to
Cruzabrarefertorecordedtransactionswhicharelegalacts.Suchallegationsdidnotdiscuss
how the alleged conspiracy was committed they are merely conjectures and bare
allegations. Inasmuch as conspiracy cannot be presumed, and there is no convincing
le:///Users/rosean/Desktop/12-%20Antonino%20v%20Desierto.htm 10/19
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 144492

evidence to support such allegations, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of
discretion.Lastly,CruzabraclaimsthatthecanceledOCTsdonotcontainanyrestrictionto
transfertherespectivelotstoAFPRSBS.Assuch,Cruzabrasubmitsthatitwouldbemost
unfairifshewouldbemadeapartoftheallegedconspiracysimplybecausesheexercised
[13]
herministerialfunctionsasRegisterofDeeds.

3.Momonganalleges,amongothers,thatasRegionalExecutiveDirectoroftheDENR,heis
dulyauthorizedtosignpatentsandreconstitutedpatents.Sincethestandardprocedureand
processes were complied with, Momongan simply relied on his subordinates and on their
goodfaith.Hearguesthatheactedinaccordancewithlaw,departmentguidelines,rulesand
regulations,andthattorequirehimtoscrutinizeeveryphaseofareportofasubordinateisa
[14]
verytallorder.

[15]
4. Judge Adre manifests that in the Joint Resolution of the Senate Committees on
AccountabilityofPublicOfficersandInvestigation(BlueRibbon)andNationalDefenseand
Security, dated December 23, 1998, not one of the respondents was recommended for
prosecution in connection with the irregularity involving the Magsaysay Park. Judge Adre
claims that he acted properly, and even sought the opinion of the OSG before the
Compromise Agreement was approved. However, Judge Adre narrated that due to the
vagariesofpolitics,thejudgmentlaydormant,asnomotionforexecutionwasfiledbythen
Mayor Adelbert Antonino, husband of petitioner, after Mayor Nuez lost in the elections.
Subsequently,thewritwasnotissuedastheHeirsofCabaloKusopdidnotexecuteanydeed
ofdonationinfavorofthecity.HedeclaredthattheRTCdidnotlosejurisdictionoverthe
casewhentheMotionsforClarificationandExclusionwerefiledthus,theissuanceofthe
assailed RTC Order excluding Lot X and enjoining the Heirs of Cabalo Kusop from
donating the same to the city in keeping with the intent and spirit of the compromise
[16]
agreement,wasproper.

5. BorinagapositsthattheOmbudsman'sfactualfindingsneednotbedisturbed,astheyare
not attended by grave abuse of discretion. He maintains that he acted in accordance with
lawthatastheRegionalTechnicalDirectorisnotrequiredtogotothepremisesoftheland
subjectofmiscellaneousapplications,andhemayrelyonthedatasubmittedbytheCENRO
[17]
and reviewed by the PENRO. Moreover, Borinaga argues that the Motion for
le:///Users/rosean/Desktop/12-%20Antonino%20v%20Desierto.htm 11/19
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 144492

ReconsiderationofpetitionerassailingtheOmbudsman'sResolutionwasfiledoutoftime.
[18] [19]
The Certification dated October 1, 2003, issued by Severo A. Sotto, Records
Officer IV of the Office of the Ombudsman, shows that petitioner was personally served
withacopyoftheassailedResolutiononFebruary24,1999byJoseRuelBermejo,Process
Server,andshefiledherMotionforReconsiderationonlyonFebruary4,2000.

6. Diazopinesthatthereisnosubstantialevidencetoprovethatheparticipatedinagrand
schemetounlawfullydisposeofthelotscoveredbyLotX.Hevouchesthatwhenheissued
thenoticeofsale,hedidsoonthebasisoftherequisitedocumentssubmittedtohisoffice.
[20]
7.MayorNuezandNalangancontendthatMayorNuezdidnotviolatetheCharteroftheCity,
becausewhensheenteredintotheCompromiseAgreementwiththeHeirsofCabaloKusop,
she was authorized by the Sangguniang Panlungsod under Resolution No. 87, series of
1991, after almost one (1) year of committee and public hearings. The same was also
referred to the OSG, which recommended its approval. When the Heirs of Cabalo Kusop
filedaMotionforExclusionofLotX,Nalanganhadnorecoursebuttotellthetruththat,
indeed,hefoundnodeedofdonationmadeinfavorofthecity.Whiletheyadmittohave
issuedIndorsements,theymadeitclearthattheDENRshallundertakeonlywhatislegally
feasible.MayorNuezandNalanganasseveratethattheyhadnointentionofgivingupthe
claim of the city over Lot X, as they even filed a case against Mad Guaybar and his
[21]
companions.

OurRuling

TheinstantPetitionlacksmerit.

[22]
Section27ofR.A.No.6770(TheOmbudsmanActof1989) provides:

SEC. 27. Effectivity and Finality of Decisions. (1) All provisionary orders of the Office of the
Ombudsmanareimmediatelyeffectiveandexecutory.

A motion for reconsideration of any order, directive or decision of the Office of the Ombudsman
mustbefiledwithinfive(5)daysafterreceiptofwrittennoticeandshallbeentertainedonlyonany
ofthefollowinggrounds:

(1)Newevidencehasbeendiscoveredwhichmateriallyaffectstheorder,directiveordecision

le:///Users/rosean/Desktop/12-%20Antonino%20v%20Desierto.htm 12/19
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 144492

(2)Errorsoflaworirregularitieshavebeencommittedprejudicialtotheinterestofthemovant.The
motionforreconsiderationshallberesolvedwithinthree(3)daysfromfiling:Provided,Thatonly
onemotionforreconsiderationshallbeentertained.


Other than the statement of material dates wherein petitioner claimed that she received through
counseltheassailedResolutionoftheOmbudsmanonJanuary21,2000,shefailedtoestablishthat
herMotionforReconsiderationwasindeedfiledontime,andthus,failedtorefutetheassertionof
therespondentsbasedontheaforementionedCertificationthatpetitionerwaspersonallyserveda
copyoftheassailedResolutiononFebruary24,1999.Thereareanumberofinstanceswhenrules
ofprocedurearerelaxedintheinterestofjustice.However,inthiscase,petitionerdidnotproffer
any explanation at all for the late filing of the motion for reconsideration. After the respondents
madesuchallegation,petitionerdidnotbothertorespondandmeettheissueheadon.Wefindno
justificationwhytheOmbudsmanentertainedthemotionforreconsideration,when,atthetimeof
thefilingofthemotionforreconsiderationtheassailedResolutionwasalreadyfinal.

Evenonlyonthebasisofthisfatalproceduralinfirmity,theinstantPetitionoughttobedismissed.
Andonthesubstantiveissueraised,thepetitionislikewisebereftofmerit.

UnderSections12and13,ArticleXIofthe1987Constitution,andpursuanttoR.A.No.6770,the
Ombudsmanhasthepowertoinvestigateandprosecuteanyactoromissionofapublicofficeror
[23]
employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.
WellsettledistherulethatthisCourtwillnotordinarilyinterferewiththeOmbudsman'sexercise
of his investigatory and prosecutory powers without good and compelling reasons that indicate
otherwise. The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers
granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman, but upon practicality as well. A
contrary rule would encourage innumerable petitions seeking dismissal of investigatory
proceedingsconductedbytheOmbudsman,whichwouldgrievouslyhamperthefunctionsofthe
officeandthecourts,inmuchthesamewaythatcourtswouldbeswampedbyadelugeofcasesif
they have to review the exercise of discretion on the part of public prosecutors each time they
[24]
decidetofileaninformationordismissacomplaintbyaprivatecomplainant.

Of course, this rule is not absolute. The aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under
Rule65oftheRulesofCourtwhenthefindingoftheOmbudsmanistaintedwithgraveabuseof
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, as what the petitioner did in this case,

le:///Users/rosean/Desktop/12-%20Antonino%20v%20Desierto.htm 13/19
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 144492

[25]
consistent with our ruling in Collantes v. Marcelo, where we laid down the following
exceptionstotherule:

1.Whennecessarytoaffordadequateprotectiontotheconstitutionalrightsoftheaccused

2.Whennecessaryfortheorderlyadministrationofjusticeortoavoidoppressionormultiplicityof
actions

3.Whenthereisaprejudicialquestionthatissubjudice

4.Whentheactsoftheofficerarewithoutorinexcessofauthority

5.Wheretheprosecutionisunderaninvalidlaw,ordinanceorregulation

6.Whendoublejeopardyisclearlyapparent

7.Wherethecourthasnojurisdictionovertheoffense

8.Whereitisacaseofpersecutionratherthanprosecution

9.Wherethechargesaremanifestlyfalseandmotivatedbythelustforvengeance

10.When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that
groundhasbeendenied.


Graveabuseofdiscretionexistswhereapowerisexercisedinanarbitrary,capricious,whimsical
ordespoticmannerbyreasonofpassionorpersonalhostilitysopatentandgrossastoamountto
evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by, or in contemplation of
[26]
law.

TheallegedgraveabuseofdiscretionimputedtotheOmbudsmanisfoundwantinginthiscase.
Thus,thisCourtfindsnoreasontodeviatefromthegeneralrule.Weconcurwiththedisquisition
ofGIOIRubillarAraoindismissingthechargesagainstrespondents,asapprovedbyOmbudsman
Desierto,thus:

Hence,withoutrulingonthevalidityofthetitles,thisOfficeisconstrainedtolimititsevaluationof
the issue on the participation of each respondent in the titling of Lot X, whether the same would
constituteaviolationofRA3019and/orotherillegalacts.

1.RespondentAbednegoAdreHisparticipationextendsonlytohisissuanceofanOrderexcluding
LotXfromthecoverageoftheCompromiseAgreement.

AreviewofthetermsandconditionsofthesubjectCompromiseAgreementconfirmstheOrderof
the respondent that indeed Lot X was excluded. The Order of respondent judge was made in
accordance with the facts of the case. It is even noteworthy that respondent judge assisted in

le:///Users/rosean/Desktop/12-%20Antonino%20v%20Desierto.htm 14/19
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 144492

preservingtheclaimofthegovernmentofGeneralSantosCityoverLotXbyenjoiningthedonation
ofsaidpropertybytheprivaterespondents.

2.RespondentsNuezandNalanganSaidrespondentsparticipationinthetitlingofLotXwaswhen
they issued or caused the issuance of Indorsements stating therein that this office (Office of the
Mayor)interposesnoobjectiontowhateverlegalproceedingsyour(CENRO)officemaypursueon
theapplicationcoveringportionsthereof(LotX).

ThecontentsoftheIndorsements,asquotedabove,cannotbeconstruedasawaiveronthepartof
GeneralSantosCityonitsclaimoverLotX.Onthecontrary,ithasgivenDENRtheauthorityto
take the necessary legal proceedings relative to the titling of the property.Moreover, it should be
takenintoaccountthatDENRhastheresponsibility,authorityandthepowertograntalienableand
disposablelandstodeservingclaimants.

Based on these circumstances, there is no evidence to prove that respondents Nuez and Nalangan
gaveunwarrantedbenefittotheclaimantsbyissuingsaidIndorsements.Infact,theyprotectedthe
interestofthegovernmentoverLotXbyimmediatelyfilingacasefornullificationoftitlesupon
knowingoftheissuancesthereof.

xxxx

[5.] Public respondents Julio C. Diaz, Agapito Borinaga, Augustus L. Momongan, Asteria E.
CruzabraBasedontheevidencesonrecord,theserespondentswereintheregularperformanceof
their official functions. Their participation in the titling of LotX was due to the fact that the
documentsfortitlingweresubmittedtotheirrespectiveofficesasamatterofcourse,andthereis
nothingthattheycandobuttofollowtheestablishedprocedureuponfindingthatallthedocuments
[27]
fortitlingweresubmitted.


Indeed, while the Ombudsman's discretion in determining the existence of probable cause is not
absolute, nonetheless, petitioner must prove that such discretion was gravely abused in order to
[28]
warrantthereversaloftheOmbudsman'sfindingsbythisCourt.Inthisrespect,petitionerfails.

Moreover, the elements of the offense, essential for the conviction of an accused under Section
3(e),R.A.No.3019,areasfollows:

(1)Theaccusedisapublicofficeroraprivatepersonchargedinconspiracywiththeformer

(2)Thesaidpublicofficercommitstheprohibitedactsduringtheperformanceofhisorherofficial
duties,orinrelationtohisorherpublicfunctions

(3)Thatheorshecausesundueinjurytoanyparty,whetherthegovernmentoraprivateparty

(4) Such undue injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such
partiesand

(5)Thatthepublicofficerhasactedwithmanifestpartiality,evidentbadfaithorgrossinexcusable
[29]
neglect.

le:///Users/rosean/Desktop/12-%20Antonino%20v%20Desierto.htm 15/19
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 144492

Thus,inordertobeheldguiltyofviolatingSection3(e),R.A.No.3019,theactoftheaccused
that caused undue injury must have been done with evident bad faith or with gross inexcusable
negligence.Badfaithperseisnotenoughforonetobeheldliableunderthelawbadfaithmustbe
evident.Badfaithdoesnotsimplyconnotebadmoraljudgmentornegligence.Theremustbesome
dishonestpurposeorsomemoralobliquityandconsciousdoingofawrong,abreachofasworn
dutythroughsomemotiveorintentorillwill.Itpartakesofthenatureoffraud.Itcontemplatesa
stateofmindaffirmativelyoperatingwithfurtivedesignorsomemotiveofselfinterest,orillwill
for ulterior purposes. On the other hand, gross negligence is characterized by the want of even
slight care, acting or omitting to act in a willful or intentional manner displaying a conscious
[30]
indifferencetoconsequencesasfarasotherpersonsmaybeaffected.

AsfoundbytheOmbudsmanandbasedontherecords,thereisnoshowingofevidentbadfaith
and/orgrossnegligenceintherespectiveactsoftherespondents.Itmustbestressedthatitisgood
faith, not bad faith, which is presumed, as the chapter on Human Relations of the Civil Code
directs every person, inter alia, to observe good faith, which springs from the fountain of good
[31]
conscience.

Finally, petitioner speaks of conspiracy among the respondents and those indicted. However, as
foundbytheOmbudsman,suchconspiracyallegedinthecomplaintwasnotsupportedbyample
evidence.Atbest,theevidenceadducedwasnotclearastorespondents'participationintheactsin
question. Actori incumbit onus probandi the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff or the
prosecution.Theinherentweaknessofcomplainant'scaseisnotagroundfortheOmbudsmanto
[32]
conductpreliminaryinvestigation. Foritisfundamentalthatconspiracycannotbepresumed.
Conspiracymustbeprovedbydirectevidenceorbyproofoftheovertactsoftheaccused,before,
[33]
duringandafterthecommissionofthecrimechargedindicativeofacommondesign. This,the
petitionersadlyfailedtoestablish.
All told, the Ombudsman did not act with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal
complaintagainstrespondents.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDISMISSED.Nocosts.

SOORDERED.

le:///Users/rosean/Desktop/12-%20Antonino%20v%20Desierto.htm 16/19
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 144492

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice


WECONCUR:



CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson



MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice



RUBENT.REYES
AssociateJustice


ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewas
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.



CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision


CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,
I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.


REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
Rollo,pp.106140.
[2]
Prepared by Graft Investigation Officer (GIO) I Joy C. RubillarArao, reviewed by OICDirector Corazon A. Arancon with the
recommending approval of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao Margarito P. Gervacio, Jr. and approved by respondent Ombudsman
AnianoA.Desiertoid.at143175.

[3]
Records,pp.192199.

le:///Users/rosean/Desktop/12-%20Antonino%20v%20Desierto.htm 17/19
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 144492
[4]
Id.at118.
[5]
OtherwiseknownastheAntiGraftandCorruptPracticesAct,whichpertinentlyprovides,towit:
SECTION3.Corruptpracticesofpublicofficers.Inadditiontoactsoromissionsofpublicofficersalreadypenalizedbyexistinglaw,the
followingshallconstitutecorruptpracticesofanypublicofficerandareherebydeclaredtobeunlawful:
xxxx
(e)Causinganyundueinjurytoanyparty,includingtheGovernment,orgivinganyprivatepartyanyunwarrantedbenefits,advantageor
preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusablenegligence.Thisprovisionshallapplytoofficersandemployeesofofficesorgovernmentcorporationschargedwiththegrant
oflicensesorpermitsorotherconcessions.
xxxx
(g)Entering,onbehalfoftheGovernment,intoanycontractortransactionmanifestlyandgrosslydisadvantageoustothesame,whetheror
notthepublicofficerprofitedorwillprofitthereby.
xxxx
(j)Knowinglyapprovingorgrantinganylicense,permit,privilegeorbenefitinfavorofanypersonnotqualifiedforornotlegallyentitled
tosuchlicense,permit,privilegeoradvantage,orofamererepresentativeordummyofonewhoisnotsoqualifiedorentitled.
[6]
Supranote2,at173174.(Emphasissupplied.)
[7]
Id.at7576.
[8]
Supranote1,at123.
[9]
Petitioner'sMemorandumdatedSeptember15,2003rollo,pp.602640.
[10]
397Phil.829(2000).
[11]
G.R.No.110736,December27,1993,228SCRA718,722.
[12]
OSP'sMemorandumdatedAugust18,2003rollo,pp.541565.
[13]
Cruzabra'sMemorandumdatedAugust18,2003id.at589596.
[14]
Momongan'sMemorandumdatedSeptember18,2003id.at692709.
[15]
Id.at259281.

[16]
JudgeAdre'sMemorandumdatedSeptember23,2003id.at743752.
[17]
Borinaga'sMemorandumdatedOctober2,2003id.at754794.
[18]
Borinaga'sSupplementalMemorandumdatedOctober28,2003id.at893898.
[19]
Id.at901902.
[20]
Diaz'MemorandumdatedOctober12,2004id.at987993.
[21]
MemorandumofMayorNuezandNalangandatedOctober6,2003id.at871888.
[22]
AscitedinPeoplev.Velez,445Phil.784,798(2003).
[23]
Sections12and13,ArticleXIofthe1987Constitutionprovide:
Sec.12.The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner
against public officials or employees of the government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government
ownedorcontrolledcorporations,andshall,inappropriatecases,notifythecomplainantsoftheactiontakenandresultsthereof.
Sec.13.TheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanshallhavethefollowingpowers,functions,andduties:
(1)Investigateonitsown,oroncomplaintbyanyperson,anyactoromissionofanypublicofficial,employee,officeoragency,when
suchactoromissionappearstobeillegal,unjust,improper,orinefficientxxx.
Section15ofRA6770states:
Sec.15.Powers,FunctionsandDuties.TheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanshallhavethefollowingpowers,functionsandduties:
(1)Investigateandprosecuteonitsownoroncomplaintbyanyperson,anyactoromissionofanypublicofficeroremployee,officeor
agency,whensuchactoromissionappearstobeillegal,unjust,improperorinefficient.Ithasprimaryjurisdictionovercasescognizable
bytheSandiganbayanand,intheexerciseofthisprimaryjurisdiction,itmaytakeover,atanystage,fromanyinvestigatoryagencyof
government,theinvestigationofsuchcases.(PresidentialAdHocFactFindingCommitteeonBehestLoansv.Desierto,G.R.No.138142,
September19,2007,533SCRA571,581.)
[24]
PresidentialCommissiononGoodGovernmentv.Desierto,G.R.No.140231,July9,2007,527SCRA61,7071.(Citationsomitted.)

le:///Users/rosean/Desktop/12-%20Antonino%20v%20Desierto.htm 18/19
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 144492
[25]
G.R.Nos.16700607,August14,2007,530SCRA142,151152.

[26]
Tetangcov.Ombudsman,G.R.No.156427,January20,2006,479SCRA249,253.
[27]
Supranote2,at164168.
[28]
Limv.Desierto,G.R.No.154992,February13,2008,545SCRA66,77.
[29]
Baylonv.OfficeoftheOmbudsman,423Phil.705,721(2001),citingGarciav.OfficeoftheOmbudsman,325SCRA667,669670
(2000)andIngcov.Sandiganbayan,338Phil.1061,1072(1997).
[30]
Baylonv.OfficeoftheOmbudsman,supra,at724.
[31]
Principiov.Barrientos,G.R.No.167025,December19,2005,478SCRA639,649650,citingVenusv.Hon.Desierto,358Phil.675,
697(1998).
[32]
ThePresidentialAdHocFactFindingCommitteeonBehestLoansv.Desierto,415Phil.145,150(2001).
[33]
PeopleofthePhilippinesv.HuangZhenHua,G.R.No.139301,September29,2004,439SCRA350,369.

le:///Users/rosean/Desktop/12-%20Antonino%20v%20Desierto.htm 19/19