G.R. No. 129098 ; December 6, 2006
AMELIA CABRERA, petitioner, vs. MANUEL LAPID, FERNANDO BALTAZAR, REYNALDO F. CABRERA and DIONY VENTURA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Amelia Cabrera entered into a lease agreement with the Municipality of Sasmuan, Pampanga, for a tract of land to be used as a fishpond, investing approximately Five Million Pesos. In October 1995, respondents, including the local Governor, Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and a PNP Superintendent, ordered and carried out the demolition of the fishpond via dynamite blasting. Respondents claimed the structure was illegal, obstructing the Pasak River and constituting a nuisance per se, with demolition ordered by a Presidential Task Force. Cabrera filed a complaint-affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman, accusing respondents of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Revised Penal Code for acting with evident bad faith and gross negligence.
The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, ruling the fishpond was a nuisance per se that could be abated without judicial proceedings under the state’s police power. It further declared the lease contract void ab initio, as the land was inalienable and not declared disposable by the DENR, and the authority to grant fishpond permits lay with the BFAR, not the municipality. Cabrera’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint against the respondents.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Ombudsman’s resolutions. The Court held that the Ombudsman’s findings, being supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive and not subject to review by certiorari unless shown to have been rendered with grave abuse of discretion. The Court found no such abuse. The legal logic rests on the principle that the Ombudsman has full discretion to determine whether sufficient grounds exist for filing a criminal information. Its finding that the fishpond was an illegal structure on inalienable land, constituting a nuisance per se, provided a valid basis for the demolition as a lawful exercise of police power. Consequently, the respondents’ acts in implementing the demolition could not be characterized as manifest partiality, bad faith, or gross negligence essential for a violation of the Anti-Graft law. The Ombudsman correctly applied the relevant laws, including P.D. No. 704 and the Local Government Code, in concluding the lease was void and the demolition justified, thereby finding no probable cause for the crimes alleged.