LUWALHATI R. ANTONINO v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A.

DESIERTO,
GR No. 144492

NACHURA, J.:

FACTS:
The case involves a Petition for Certiorari filed by Luwalhati R. Antonino, a former
Congresswoman, against the Office of the Ombudsman and several other
respondents. The dispute revolves around the exclusion of a portion of public land
from Presidential Proclamation No. 168, which established a recreational and health
resort reservation in General Santos City. This excluded land was later subdivided
and sold to private individuals and entities, including the AFP-Retirement and
Separation Benefits System.
The petitioner alleges that there was a conspiracy among the respondents to cheat
and defraud the City Government of General Santos City through the illegal
disposition of the land in violation of the law and its charter. The petitioner argues
that there is clear and convincing evidence of the respondents' direct participation
and involvement in the fraudulent sale and disposition of the land.
The Office of the Ombudsman, on the other hand, asserts that the petitioner is
asking the court to review the evidence gathered during the preliminary investigation,
which is not proper. The Ombudsman argues that the respondents have valid and
legal justifications, based on their counter-affidavits, which exculpate them from the
charges.
The court decision focuses on the technical aspects of the case, including the
jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, the legality of the subdivision, and the validity of the
sale. After careful consideration, the court upholds the Ombudsman's decision to
dismiss the case against the respondents. The court finds that there is no evidence
to prove that the respondents committed any illegal or irregular acts. Additionally, the
court emphasizes the importance of the government strictly adhering to the rules and
regulations in the disposition of public lands to prevent fraud and irregularities.
In conclusion, the case involves a dispute over the exclusion of public land from a
reservation, its subsequent subdivision and sale to private individuals and entities.
The petitioner alleges a conspiracy to cheat and defraud the City Government, while
the respondents argue that they acted within the bounds of the law. The court
ultimately supports the Ombudsman's decision to dismiss the case, highlighting the
need for strict adherence to procedures in the disposition of public lands.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in
dismissing the charges against the respondents, including the former city Mayor,
Department of Environment and Natural Resources officials, and other individuals
involved in the alleged fraudulent sale and disposition of a portion of public land in
violation of the law and the city charter.

RULING:
The Court held that there was no evidence to prove that the respondents committed
any illegal or irregular acts in relation to the disputed land. The Ombudsman's
decision to dismiss the case against the respondents was upheld, as the Court found
no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman. However, the Court
emphasized the need for the government to strictly follow rules and regulations in the
disposition of public lands to prevent fraud and irregularity.