G.R. No. 154992 - HARRY G. LIM, vs. ANIANO DESIERTO, in his capacity as Ombudsman, ANTONIO H. CERILLES, ROSELLER DELA PEÑA, and the COURT OF APPEALS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, Apostol issued the August 23, 2001 Memorandum, [6] recommending the dismissal of Corrals resolution for lack of probable cause, reasoning as follows: This case is bound to fail. The perceived undue injury suffered by the complainant is not apparent. The reversion and cancellation of title is still to be initiated by the State thru the Solicitor General in an appropriate [proceeding]. Moreover, the questioned decision which principally includes the reinstatement of the Foreshore Lease Contract in favor of Roberto Cantoja despite false certification is not yet final as it was finally appealed by the complainant in an appeal to the Office of the President dated February 2, 2001. Furthermore, contrary to the allegation of the complainant, it is inconceivable that no inspection was ever made on the property. In fact, no other than the complainant himself alleged that a Civil Case was already filed by the Republic against him, together with Jacinto Acharon and Ernesto Go for annulment of title and recission. Likewise, the charge against respondent Roseller dela Peña for recommending Atty. Rogelio dela Peña, his law partner, is purely an administrative matter which can be properly dealt with in the administrative case. [7] Ombudsman Aniano Desierto approved the Memorandum on August 31, 2001. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied by Emily G. Reyes, Graft Investigation Officer II, in the October 30, 2001 Order. [8] The denial of the motion was affirmed by Apostol, Kallos, and Desierto. The October 30, 2001 Order stated: As aptly and validly discussed in the assailed Resolution/Memorandum of this Office, we maintain and reiterate our posture that respondents did not violate RA Nos. 3019 and 6713 in view of the absence of the constitutive elements of said crimes. Be that as it may, after review, this Office found that after the denial by the Office of the DENR Secretary of the complainant/movants Motion for Reconsideration of the order of respondent Cerilles dated October 17, 2001, complainant filed his Appeal (DENR Case o. 5231) to the Office of the President. Under the circumstances, that was the logical action and proper remedy which complainant already resorted to. We likewise believe that the denuncia against respondent dela Peña is administrative in nature and therefore the issued raised against him can be properly threshed out in an administrative proceeding rather than a criminal one. WHEREFORE, premises considered, there being no ground warranting a reconsideration of the Resolution/Memorandum dated August 23, 2001, let the subject Motion be, as it is hereby, DENIED . The Ruling of the Court of Appeals Pending resolution of petitioners appeal of the October 17, 2000 Order of the DENR to the OP, petitioner went to the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Petitioner alleged that Desierto committed grave abuse of discretion in disapproving Corrals Resolution which, as earlier indicated, recommended the filing o