G.R. No. 234640 . February 01, 2023
CRISPIN BURGOS D. BARIATA, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN CONCHITA C. CARPIO-MORALES, JOSELITO A. OJEDA, AND DULCE R. QUINTO-OJEDA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Crispin Burgos D. Bariata filed a criminal and administrative complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against then Mayor Joselito A. Ojeda and his wife Dulce R. Quinto-Ojeda. The complaint alleged unexplained wealth and failure to file true and detailed Sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) for 2010-2013, in violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 and R.A. No. 6713 , along with charges of falsification and perjury. Petitioner claimed Joselito did not declare several properties in his SALNs, including: (1) four parcels of land in Lucena City covered by specific TCTs; (2) a parcel of land under TCT No. T-64377, allegedly acquired by Joselito though registered in another’s name; (3) commercial lands in Tayabas City acquired by Joselito’s son, with buildings used for a radio business; (4) two condominium units; (5) shareholdings in Katigbak Enterprises and Renconada Broadcasting Corporation; and (6) multiple vehicles. Petitioner also questioned Joselito’s frequent foreign travels given his salary.
In defense, Joselito argued the case was retaliatory. He explained that the four Lucena properties were in custodia legis, levied in favor of BPI since 2005, and thus no longer owned by him. The land under TCT No. T-64377 was not in his name. He denied ownership of the listed vehicles, stating none were registered to him. He asserted he had divested his interests in Katigbak Enterprises in 2006. He claimed his son was gainfully employed and married, thus properties in his son’s name were not required to be declared. Foreign travels were financed by his wife’s relatives abroad and were customary since 1989. Regarding the land under TCT No. 115895 (formerly TCT No. T-64377), Joselito claimed it was sold via a Deed of Absolute Sale in 2005.
Petitioner replied that properties in custodia legis should still be declared, presented a 2014 financial statement showing Joselito as Chairman of Katigbak Enterprises, and provided a tax declaration and certification showing Joselito paid real property taxes for the land under TCT No. 115895.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal and administrative complaints against respondents for lack of merit.

RULING

No, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Ombudsman’s Joint Resolution and Joint Order. The Court held that the Ombudsman’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that no grave abuse of discretion, which implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, was present. Specifically:
1. Properties under TCT Nos. T-57936, T-65839, T-84285, and T-82483 were correctly excluded from the SALNs as they were in custodia legis following a levy on execution in 2005, meaning Joselito had lost beneficial ownership.
2. The property under TCT No. 115895 (formerly TCT No. T-64377) was validly excluded based on the Deed of Absolute Sale presented by Joselito, which transferred ownership in 2005. The petitioner’s evidence of tax payments did not conclusively prove ownership, as payment of taxes is not proof of title.
3. The vehicles and other alleged properties were not proven to be owned by Joselito, as the petitioner failed to provide evidence, such as certificates of registration, linking them to the respondent.
4. Joselito’s appearance in Katigbak Enterprises’ 2014 financial statement as Chairman was explained by the holdover doctrine due to the failure to convene stockholders’ meetings, and his divestment in 2006 was supported by a Deed of Assignment.
5. The charge of unexplained wealth failed because the properties in question were acquired before Joselito assumed office in 2010, negating any presumption of ill-gotten wealth from his public position.
6. The Ombudsman’s dismissal was within its discretion to determine probable cause and administrative liability, and its findings, based on the evidence presented, were not tainted with grave abuse of discretion.