G.R. No. 216949 - EDUARDO T. BATAC, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, TEDDY C. TUMANG, RAFAEL P. YABUT, AND PANTALEON C. MARTIN.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , having established probable cause for Violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019, let the corresponding Information be FILED against Mayor Teddy C. Tumang, Barangay Captain Rafael P. Yabut and Pantaleon C. Martin. The charges of Sec. 3(a) of R.A. 3019 and Theft are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO RESOLVED. [19] (Emphasis in the original) On November 8, 2010, the Office of the Ombudsman also issued a Decision on the administrative aspect of Batac's Complaint. [20] It found Mayor Tumang and Barangay Captain Yabut guilty of misconduct and violation of Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 6713, and penalized them each with a three (3)-month suspension. [21] Mayor Tumang, Barangay Captain Yabut, and Martin filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration [22] of the Resolution, as did Batac. [23] In its undated Joint Review Order, [24] the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed all charges against Mayor Tumang, Barangay Captain Yabut, and Martin. In ruling that no corrupt practice under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 had been committed, the Office of the Ombudsman reasoned that the element of undue injury to any party or giving a private party unwarranted benefits was absent. It found that Batac was not injured since he did not own the lahar deposits on his property. Neither was the government injured since the lahar was used for road development in San Antonio. [25] While acknowledging that the public officials could be held administratively liable for not securing a permit before quarrying, the Office of the Ombudsman nonetheless found the charges lacking in merit. It noted that after the Complaint had been filed in 2006, Mayor Tumang was re-elected in 2007 and 2010, which rendered the charge against him moot under the condonation doctrine. As for Barangay Captain Yabut, the record showed no evidence that he had conspired with Mayor Tumang in the unauthorized quarrying. [26] Thus, the Office of the Ombudsman recommended that the following actions be taken: RECALL and SET ASIDE the Resolution of 8 November 2010; DISMISS the criminal aspect of the complaint for lack of merit; DISMISS the administrative aspect of the complaint respecting respondent Teddy Tumang, applying the Condonation (doctrine; and as to respondent Rafael Yabut, for lack of merit; and a copy of this Joint Review Order be furnished the Commission on Elections, Department of [the] Interior and Local Government, and the Civil Service Commission for guidance and information. [27] (Emphasis in the original) Then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales (Ombudsman Carpio Morales) approved the Joint Review Order on November 23, 2012. [28] In its November 27, 2014 Joint Order, [29] the Office of the Ombudsman denied Batac's Motion for Reconsideration. It explained that lahar deposits are minerals, which are owned by the State under Republic Act No. 7942, or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995. [30] This Joint Order was similarly approved by Ombudsman d Morales on December 16, 2014. [31] Thus, Ba