ABS-CBN v OMB

8/3/2019 ABS-CBN v OMB

1/24

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 133347, October 15, 2008]

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, EUGENIO

LOPEZ, JR., AUGUSTO ALMEDA-LOPEZ, AND OSCAR

M. LOPEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. OFFICE OF THE

OMBUDSMAN, ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO,* EXEQUIEL

B. GARCIA, MIGUEL V. GONZALES, AND SALVADOR

(BUDDY) TAN,*RESPONDENTS.

DECISION

NACHURA, J.:At bar is a petition for certiorariunder Rule 65 of the Rules ofCourt challenging the Joint Resolution[1] dated May 2, 1997 ofthen Ombudsman Aniano Desierto in OMB-0-94-1109, dismissingthe complaint filed by petitioners against private respondents,and the Order[2] denying their motion for reconsideration.

This case stems from an all too familiar chapter in Philippinehistory, i.e., the declaration of martial law by then PresidentFerdinand Marcos and the simultaneous sequestration of not afew private corporations, including one of the petitioners herein,ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN).

On April 18 and 26, 1994, petitioners Eugenio, Jr., Oscar andAugusto Almeda, all surnamed Lopez, as officers and on behalf of

ABS-CBN, executed separate complaint-affidavits chargingprivate respondents Roberto S. Benedicto, Exequiel B. Garcia,Miguel V. Gonzalez, and Salvador (Buddy) Tan with the followingcrimes penalized under the Revised Penal Code (RPC): (a) Article298 - Execution of Deeds by Means of Violence or Intimidation;(b) Article 315 paragraphs 1[b], 2[a], 3[a] - Estafa; (c) Article308 - Theft; (d) Article 302 - Robbery; (e) Article 312 -


2/24

Occupation of Real Property or Usurpation of Real Rights inProperty; and (f) Article 318 - Other Deceits.

Individual petitioners' complaint-affidavits[3] uniformly narrated

the following facts:1.The day after the declaration of martial law, or on

September 22, 1972, just before midnight, military troopsarrived at the ABS-CBN Broadcast Center in Bohol Avenue,Quezon City, and informed the officers and personnelthereat of the seizure and closure of the premises by virtueof Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 1 issued by PresidentMarcos ordering the closure of all radio and television

stations in the country.2.LOI No. 1 authorized the Secretary of National Defense to

"take over or control, or cause the taking over and control ofall x x x newspapers, magazines, radio and televisionfacilities and all other media of communications" throughoutthe country. Consequently, a total of seven (7) televisionstations owned and operated by ABS-CBN were closed downby the government.[4]

3.When it became apparent that petitioners would not begranted a permit to re-open, ABS-CBN on October 31, 1972,terminated the services of all its employees, giving eachemployee his/her retirement benefits. Corollary thereto,sometime in November 1972, Eugenio Lopez, Jr., thenpresident of ABS-CBN, wrote then Secretary of NationalDefense, Juan Ponce Enrile,[5] of their desire to sell ABS-CBNto the government. In that same month, however, EugenioLopez, Jr. was arrested by the military, and detained at Fort

Bonifacio for almost five (5) years until his escape therefromon September 30, 1977.

4.Subsequently, after the proposal to sell ABS-CBN to theMarcos government did not materialize, ABS-CBN startednegotiations with then Governor of Leyte, Benjamin "Kokoy"Romualdez, who expressed his desire and intention to


3/24

acquire the former. However, the negotiations with KokoyRomualdez in 1973 likewise did not result in the sale and re-opening of ABS-CBN.

5.On June 6, 1973, the television and radio stations ofKanlaon Broadcasting System (KBS) on Roxas Boulevard,Pasay City were consumed by fire. KBS was the umbrellacorporation of the Benedicto Group of broadcastingcompanies, including Radio Philippines Network(RPN),[6] which operated TV Channel 9, the only televisionstation allowed to continue operating during the early yearsof the martial law regime. Respondent Benedicto, thenPhilippine Ambassador to Japan, managed, controlled, andwas one of the principal stockholders of RPN.

6.On even date, both Benedicto and Alfredo Montelibano, whoat that time was Chairperson of the Board of Directors(BOD) of ABS-CBN, were in Bacolod. Benedicto constitutedMontelibano as his emissary to the Lopezes, relaying hisplan to temporarily use ABS-CBN's broadcast studios inQuezon City, from which to operate TV Channel 9, for suchperiod of time as may be necessary to rebuild KBS' burnedstudios.

7.On June 8, 1973, Montelibano met with other officers andexecutives of ABS-CBN, including herein petitioners Oscarand Augusto Lopez, informing them of Benedicto's request.Oscar and Augusto, and the rest of the ABS-CBNmanagement team, strongly opposed the request.Eventually, however, when Montelibano mentioned thatMalacaang and Romualdez had cleared said request, thepossibility of a government-ordered confiscation of ABS-

CBN, and not least of all, the possible release of EugenioLopez, Jr., petitioners Oscar and Augusto, as with the rest ofABS-CBN's executives, acquiesced to Benedicto's request.

8.Thus, at noontime on the same day, representatives of KBSheaded by Jose Montalvo arrived at the Meralco Building tofinalize the proposed arrangement with ABS-CBN. The


4/24

transaction between ABS-CBN and KBS is evidenced by aletter-agreement dated June 8, 1973, which reads inrelevant part:

This is to confirm the agreement arrived at between RPNand ABS-CBN to the following effect:1.Commencing on the date hereof, ABS-CBN hereby

conveys to RPN by way of lease its TV and radioequipment (excluding TV channels and radiofrequencies) and its premises at the ABS-CBNBroadcast Center, Bohol Avenue, Quezon City(collectively called the "leased facilities") listed in theschedule attached hereto and marked as Annex "A".

2.RPN shall pay ABS-CBN monthly rental as is reasonablecompensation for the use of the leased facilities. Theamount of the rental shall be determined after adiscussion with Ambassador Roberto Benedicto.

3.The term of this lease shall commence on the datehereof and continue for such reasonable time as maybe normally necessary for the rehabilitation of RPN'sfacilities unless an earlier period may be fixed by RPN

and ABS-CBN after discussion with AmbassadorBenedicto.

4.RPN hereby assumes full and complete responsibilityfor the leased facilities and shall be answerable for anyand all losses and damages to such facilities.

x x x x

5.Upon termination of this lease, RPN shall return thepossession of the leased facilities to ABS-CBN andvacate the same without the need of notice or demand.

6.ABS-CBN, through its Chairman, Mr. AlfredoMontelibano, shall have the right to select anddesignate the personnel (not to exceed 20 at any one


5/24

time) to maintain and operate all specialized TV andradio equipment.

x x x x

7.ABS-CBN shall have the right to enter the BroadcastCenter at any reasonable time during the term of thislease for the purpose of determining compliance byRPN of the terms hereof.

x x x x

8.RPN shall not, without the prior written consent of ABS-CBN, sub-lease the leased facilities or any part thereof

nor shall any part be removed from the premisesexcept the equipment, which are intended for operationthe Broadcast Center in due course of operations.

9.Meanwhile, it appears that the parties were hard pressed tonegotiate and fix the monthly rental rate. Several attemptsby Oscar to set up a meeting with Benedicto for the fixing ofthe monthly rentals proved unsuccessful.

10. After more than four months of trying, a meetingbetween Oscar and Benedicto finally materialized on October31, 1973. At that meeting, the discussion not only coveredfixing of reasonable rentals for the lease of the ABS-CBNstudios, but likewise included the possibility of an outrightsale.

11. Thereafter, the discussions and negotiations stopped asnone of the petitioners were able to meet anew withBenedicto who had supposedly referred the matter to

"people above" and the "man on top."12. Frustrated, then Senator Lorenzo Taada, as counsel

for ABS-CBN, in May 1976, wrote Benedicto demandingvacation of the ABS-CBN Broadcast Center and payment ofback rentals for the use of the ABS-CBN studios andfacilities.


6/24

13. In response, Senator Estanislao Fernandez, on behalf ofBenedicto, met with Senator Taada in June 1976. Anothermeeting took place between the parties' respective counselswhich included respondent Gonzales, another counsel for

Benedicto. Despite these meetings, no agreement wasreached between Benedicto and ABS-CBN. On the whole,from June 8, 1973, the time KBS occupied the ABS-CBNstudios in Quezon City, no rental was paid by the former tothe latter.

14. In the years following until the Marcos government wastoppled in 1986, the ABS-CBN stations were transferred tothe National Media Production Center (NMPC) headed byGregorio Cendaa of the Ministry of Information. Startingin January 1980, KBS, on a staggered basis, transferredpossession, control and management of ABS-CBN'sprovincial television stations to NMPC. Some of the radiostations of ABS-CBN were turned over to the government'sBureau of Broadcast, while some were retained by KBS thruthe Banahaw Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and RadioPhilippines Network (RPN).

15. Parenthetically, during a military inventory in 1979-1980, and a visit by ABS-CBN executives at ABS-CBN's radiotransmitting stations in Meycauayan, Bulacan, headed bypetitioner Augusto, on August 13, 1984, ABS-CBN propertiesand massive equipment were found to be missing. Inaddition, the musical records and radio dramas accumulatedby ABS-CBN in a span of twenty-five (25) years and storedin its library were now gone.

16. In June 1986, President Corazon Aquino, acting on therequest of ABS-CBN through Senator Taada, returned toABS-CBN these radio and TV stations on a gradual andscheduled basis.

As required by the Ombudsman, the respondents, except forGarcia, filed their respective counter-affidavits,[7] with Benedicto


7/24

adopting that of Gonzales', denying petitioners' charges, andaverring that:

1.The execution of the June 8, 1973 letter-agreement was afree and voluntary act of ABS-CBN which agreed theretofully expecting remuneration in the form of rentals, thus:

2.RPN shall pay ABS-CBN monthly rental as is reasonablecompensation for the use of the lease facilities. Theamount of the rental shall be determined after adiscussion with Ambassador Roberto Benedicto.

2.In that regard, respondent Gonzales, counsel for KBS, RPNand Benedicto, participated in the negotiations and waspresent at three (3) meetings for the fixing of rentals. Also

in attendance were former Senator Estanislao Fernandez,specially engaged to represent RPN and Benedicto, andSenator Taada and petitioner Augusto for ABS-CBN.

3.Initially, the discussions centered on the possible formulasfor the fixing of rentals. Later on, however, before anagreement on the rental rate could be reached, thediscussions shifted to the possibility of an outright sale. Thediscussions on the sale were expanded as various creditorsof ABS-CBN had made and presented claims beforerespondent Garcia, then Comptroller of KBS-RPN.

4.However, the discussions were discontinued when thenSecretary of National Defense Juan Ponce Enrile remindedKBS of the sequestered status of ABS-CBN facilities suchthat arrangements undertaken for the use and lease thereofshould be taken up with the government.[8]

5.Meanwhile, in July 1974, Secretary Ponce Enrile authorizedKBS, acting on behalf of BBC, to make use of the ABS-CBNprovincial stations which were not covered by the June 8,1973 letter-agreement. The authorization was granted inconnection with the increased undertakings assigned by theDepartment of National Defense (DND) to KBS, specifically,for the government's mass-media developmental peace andorder nationwide campaign.


8/24

7.Thereafter, in October 1977, RPN vacated the ABS-CBNstudios and turned over the properties to George Viduya, thegeneral manager of the government station GTV-4. Viduyacontinued operations of GTV-4 at the ABS-CBN properties,

after which, the properties were all delivered in 1979 to theNMPC headed by Cendaa. The provincial stations weredelivered and turned over on a staggered basis, with theDZRI station in Dagupan handed over in 1979. Thesuccessive transfer of all ABS-CBN studios and stations, inQuezon City and the provinces, were covered by receiptswhich were collated by the law firm of respondent Gonzalesretained by KBS for that purpose.

8.The use of the ABS-CBN studios involved only three (3)juridical entities, RPN, ABS-CBN and the government. Thecharges leveled by petitioners in their complaint-affidavitsmerely point to civil liability as specified in the letter-agreement itself:

4.RPN hereby assumes full and complete responsibilityfor the leased facilities and shall be answerable for anyand all losses and damages to such facilities.

On the whole, the allegations of petitioners do not supportthe elements of the crimes charged.

9.Lastly, respondents invoke the grant of absolute immunity toBenedicto as part of the Compromise Agreement inSandiganbayan Civil Case No. 34 which states:

The Government hereby extends absolute immunity, asauthorized under the pertinent provisions of ExecutiveOrders Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, to Benedicto, the members

of his family, officers and employees of the corporationsabove mentioned, who are included in past, present andfuture cases and investigations of the PhilippineGovernment, such that there shall be no criminalinvestigation or prosecution against said persons for acts,omissions committed prior to February 25, 1986 that may


9/24

be alleged to have violated any penal law, including but notlimited to Republic Act No. 3019, in relation to theacquisition of any asset treated, mentioned or included inthis Agreement.

Expectedly, the petitioners in their joint reply-affidavit refutedrespondents' counter-affidavits. Contrary to respondents'allegations, petitioners reiterated Benedicto's over-all ploy, inconspiracy with the other respondents who were officers of KBSand/or RPN, to use and occupy ABS-CBN properties withoutpaying compensation therefor. Petitioners maintain thatrespondents' grand scheme was to take-over ABS-CBN, albeitostensibly covered by the letter-lease agreement, giving the take

over a semblance of legality.Thereafter, with the issues having been joined, the Ombudsmanissued the herein assailed Joint Resolution dismissing petitioners'complaints. To the Ombudsman, the following circumstances didnot give rise to probable cause necessary to indict respondentsfor the various felonies charged:

1.The Letter-Agreement of June 8, 1973 belie any illegal take-over of the ABS-CBN complex.

While the Lopezes are now complaining that the letter-agreement was virtually forced unto them thru intimidation,hence, the vitiated consent of Mr. Montelibano, there isnothing however which the complainants adduced to provethis allegation except their threadbare allegations of threats.On the contrary, it appears that the Lopezes blessed theletter-agreement hoping that their financial difficulties withrespect to the affairs of the ABS-CBN and their problemconcerning the continued detention of Eugenio Lopez, Jr. bythe military, would at least be mitigated. x x x

It is thus clear that the ABS-CBN complex was freely leasedby Montelibano upon consultation with the Lopezes whoentertained some ulterior motives of their own which they


10/24

expect would result from the agreement, either directly orindirectly. Of course, the Lopezes may not have realizedsome of these expectations (i.e., the rentals, the release ofEugenio, Jr. from detention) but this does not change the

fact that the parties' consent to the contract appears to havebeen freely given. Perforce, the complaint under Article 298of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines must fail.

2.Other TV and radio stations were taken over pursuant to LOI1-A, hence no violations of Art. 312, 302 and 308 of RPC.

To the alleged violation of Art. 312 of the Revised PenalCode, the respondents contended that their use of ABS-CBN's facilities other than those included in the lease-agreement, was in fact with the authority of the thenDepartment of National Defense (DND). There is no denyingthat all of the ABS-CBN properties including the provincialones are under sequestration pursuant to Presidential Letterof Instruction No. 1-A, issued on September 28, 1972. Itwas under the strength of this Presidential Letter ofInstruction that KBS-RPN was authorized to enter,occupy andoperate the facilities of ABS-CBN. This was alsoconfirmed by DND Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile in his letterto RPN dated June 26, 1976. Unmistakably, KBS-RPN'spossession of the ABS-CBN's property other than those inthe ABS-CBN complex is primarily anchored on the authoritypursuant to LOI 1-A. With this apparent authority, thisinvestigation can not see in any which way how therespondents could have illegally taken over the properties ofthe [petitioners], particularly those in the province; there istherefore no convincing proof to support a charge under

Article 312 of the Revised Penal Code. It may come to mindthat "occupation of real property or usurpation of real rightsin property" under Article 312 requires as one of itselements the presence of violence against or intimidation ofpersons as a means in securing real property or rightsbelonging to another. Plainly, this element is not shown. Thecomplainants may have felt intimidated by the sequestration


11/24

order, but it is in the nature of such Order to be coercive. Itwas an act flowing from the martial law powers of thenPresident Marcos.

3.No unlawful taking as to justify charges for Robbery orTheft.

Robbery and Theft under Articles 302 and 308 of theRevised Penal Code were also attributed by the [petitioners]against the respondents. From the records, it is clear thatKBS-RPN has juridical possession of the ABS-CBN propertiessubject of this complaint; a right which can be validly set-upeven against ABS-CBN itself. It can be recalled that KBS-RPN was authorized to enter, occupy and operate ABS-CBNfacilities by virtue of the authority granted by the President,pursuant to LOI No. 1-A. Aside, the Broadcast Center itselfwas covered by the lease-agreement. Under thesesituations, there is obviously no basis to charge therespondents for robbery and theft; for these penal offenserequire as an element the act of unlawful taking orasportation. Asportation is simply poles apart from the

juridical possession which KBS-RPN enjoyed over theproperties.

4.No deceit was employed to gain possession of the BroadcastCenter and the provincial TV and radio stations.

In the prosecution for estafa under [Articles 315, paragraphs2(a), 3(a) and 318] of the Revised Penal Code, it isindispensable that the element of deceit, consisting in thefalse statement of fraudulent representation of the accused,be made prior to, or, at least simultaneously with, the

delivery of the thing by the complainants, it being essentialthat such false statement or fraudulent representationconstitutes the very cause or the only motive which inducesthe complainants to part with the thing. If there be no suchprior or simultaneous false statement or fraudulentrepresentation, any subsequent act of the respondent,


12/24

however fraudulent or suspicious it may appear, can notserve as basis for the prosecution of these crimes.

[From petitioners' complaint-affidavits], it is very clear that

the late Alfredo Montelibano was the one who talked withRoberto Benedicto, preparatory to the signing of the lease-agreement. As the complainants did not identify exactlywhich constitute the deceitful act (or the intimidation) whichcould have induced the Lopezes into accepting the leaseagreement, in most probability, the occurrences whichvitiated their consent happened during this preliminarydiscussion. Noticeably however, it is not AlfredoMontelibano, the one who supposedly talked with Benedicto,

who is testifying on the alleged "veiled threat" or deceits, ifthere are. Precisely, because he is already dead.

x x x [I]t is submitted that the Lopezes can not now testifyon something which are not derived from their own personalperception. The bottomline is that what they are now tryingto adduce, pertaining to the alleged deceits [or intimidation]attending the negotiation of the lease agreement are purelyhearsay. This is a matter which only Alfredo Montelibano

could testify competently.[9]

The Ombudsman saw no need to discuss the defenses ofprescription and immunity from suit raised by the respondentsgiven his dismissal of the complaint-affidavits on the merits.However, in a subsequent Order denying petitioners Motion forReconsideration of the Joint Resolution, the Ombudsman liftedthe Office of the Chief Legal Counsel's ratiocination for dismissingthe complaint-affidavits, thus:

Incidentally, RPN has been identified as among the corporation inwhich respondent Benedicto has substantial interests. In fact, itwas one of the subject matters of the Compromise Agreementreached by the government and respondent Benedicto inSandiganbayan Civil Case no. 34.

In that Compromise Agreement, for and in consideration of


13/24

respondent Benedicto's cession of equities, and assignment of hisrights and interest in corporations therein listed, among themRPN, the government extended "absolute immunity" to Benedicto,including officers of his corporations as therein mentioned, "such

that there shall be no criminal investigation or prosecutionagainst said persons for acts or omissions committed prior toFebruary 25, 1986 that may be alleged to have violated anypenal law, including but not limited to Republic Act No. 3019, inrelation to the acquisition of any asset treated or included in thisAgreement."

In effect, the People of the Philippines as the offended party incriminal cases has waived its right to proceed criminally against

Benedicto, et. al., for whatever crime they may have committedrelative to, among others, the alleged plunder of ABS-CBNproperties. Again, whatever liability that remains thereabout onrespondents' part is perforce only civil in nature.[10]Hence, this recourse by the petitioners alleging grave abuse ofdiscretion in the Ombudsman's Joint Resolution and Order.

Before anything else, we note that on April 5, 1999 and June 13,2000, the respective counsel for respondents Tan and Benedicto,

in compliance with Section 16,[11]

Rule 3 of the Rules of Court,filed pleadings informing the Court of their clients' demise.Benedicto's counsel filed a Notice of Death (With Prayer forDismissal)[12] moving that Benedicto be dropped as respondent inthe instant case for the reason "that the pending criminal casessubject of this appeal are actions which do not survive the deathof the party accused."

Petitioners opposed the move to drop Benedicto as respondent,

citing Torrijos v. Court of Appeals[13]

which held that "civil liabilityof the accused survives his death; because death is not a validcause for the extinguishment of civil obligations."

Our ruling on this issue need not be arduous. The rules onwhether the civil liability of an accused, upon death, is


14/24

extinguished together with his criminal liability, has long beenclarified and settled in the case ofPeople v. Bayotas:[14]

1.Death of an accused pending appeal of his convictionextinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liabilitybased solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in thisregard, "the death of the accused prior to final judgmentterminates his criminal liability and onlythe civilliability directlyarising from and based solely on the offensecommitted, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore."

2.Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survivesnotwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may alsobe predicated on a source of obligation other than delict.Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these othersources of obligation from which the civil liability may ariseas a result of the same act or omission:

a) Lawb) Contractsc) Quasi-contractsd) x x xe) Quasi-delicts

3.Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2above, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued butonly by way of filing a separate civil action and subject toSection 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on CriminalProcedure[15] as amended. The separate civil action may beenforced either against the executor/administrator or theestate of the accused, depending on the source of obligationupon which the same is based as explained above.

4.Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeitureof his right to file this separate civil action by prescription, incases where during the prosecution of the criminal actionand prior to its extinction, the private-offended partyinstituted together therewith the civil action. In such case,the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed


15/24

interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case,conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code,that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible[de]privation of right by prescription.

Applying the foregoing rules, ABS-CBN's insistence that the caseat bench survives because the civil liability of the respondentssubsists is stripped of merit.

To begin with, there is no criminal case as yet against therespondents. The Ombudsman did not find probable cause toprosecute respondents for various felonies in the RPC. As such,the rule that a civil action is deemed instituted along with the

criminal action unless the offended party: (a) waives the civilaction, (b) reserves the right to institute it separately, or (c)institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action,[16] is notapplicable.

In any event, consistent with People v. Bayotas,[17] the death ofthe accused necessarily calls for the dismissal of the criminal caseagainst him, regardless of the institution of the civil case with it.The civil action which survives the death of the accused must

hinge on other sources of obligation provided in Article 1157 ofthe Civil Code. In such a case, a surviving civil action against theaccused founded on other sources of obligation must beprosecuted in a separate civil action. In other words, civil liabilitybased solely on the criminal action is extinguished, and adifferent civil action cannot be continued and prosecuted in thesame criminal action.

Significantly, this Court in Benedicto v. Court of

Appeals,

[18]

taking cognizance of respondent Benedicto's death onMay 15, 2000, has ordered that the latter be dropped as a party,and declared extinguished any criminal as well as civil liability exdelictothat might be attributable to him in Criminal Cases Nos.91-101879 to 91-101883, 91-101884 to 101892, and 92-101959to 92-101969 pending before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.


16/24

Lastly, we note that petitioners appear to have already followedour ruling in People v. Bayotas[19] by filing a separate civil actionto enforce a claim against the estate of respondentBenedicto.[20] The claim against the estate of Benedicto is based

on contractthe June 8, 1973 letter- agreementinconsonance with Section 5,[21]Rule 86 of the Rules of Court.Plainly, the dropping of respondents Benedicto and Tan as partiesherein is in order.

We now come to the core issue of whether the Ombudsmancommitted grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners'complaint against the respondents. We rule in the negative and,accordingly, dismiss the petition.

We cannot overemphasize the fact that the Ombudsman is aconstitutional officer duty bound to "investigate on its own, or oncomplaint by any person, any act or omission of any publicofficial, employee, office or agency, when such act or omissionappears to be illegal, unjust, improper, orinefficient."[22] The raison d 'etre for its creation and endowmentof broad investigative authority is to insulate it from the longtentacles of officialdom that are able to penetrate judges' and

fiscals' offices, and others involved in the prosecution of erringpublic officials, and through the execution of official pressure andinfluence, quash, delay, or dismiss investigations intomalfeasances and misfeasances committed by public officers.[23]

In Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) v.Desierto,[24] we dwelt on the powers, functions and duties of theOmbudsman, to wit:The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers is vested

primarily in the Office of the Ombudsman. It bears emphasis thatthe Office has been given a wide latitude of investigatory andprosecutory powers under the Constitution and Republic Act No.6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989). This discretion is all butfree from legislative, executive or judicial intervention to ensurethat the Office is insulated from any outside pressure andimproper influence.


17/24

Indeed, the Ombudsman is empowered to determine whetherthere exist reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has beencommitted and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and,

thereafter, to file the corresponding information with theappropriate courts. The Ombudsman may thus conduct aninvestigation if the complaint filed is found to be in the properform and substance. Conversely, the Ombudsman may alsodismiss the complaint should it be found insufficient in form orsubstance.

Unless there are good and compelling reasons to do so, the Courtwill refrain from interfering with the exercise of the Ombudsman's

powers, and respect the initiative and independence inherent inthe latter who, beholden to no one, acts as the champion of thepeople and the preserver of the integrity of public service.

The pragmatic basis for the general rule was explained in Ocampov. Ombudsman:The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory andprosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office ofthe Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the

functions of the courts will be grievously hampered byinnumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatoryproceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman withregard to complaints filed before it, in much the same way thatthe courts would be extremely swamped if they would becompelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of thefiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file aninformation in court or dismiss a complaint by privatecomplainants.[25]

From the foregoing, it is crystal clear that we do not interferewith the Ombudsman's exercise of his investigatory andprosecutory powers vested by the Constitution. In short, we donot review the Ombudsman's exercise of discretion in prosecutingor dismissing a complaint except when the exercise thereof istainted with grave abuse of discretion.


18/24

By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious andwhimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction.The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as toamount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to

perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplationof law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary anddespotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.[26] In thisregard, petitioners utterly failed to demonstrate theOmbudsman's abuse, much less grave abuse, of discretion.

Apart from a blanket and general charge that remainingrespondents herein, Gonzales and Garcia, are officers of KBS/RPNand/or alter egos of Benedicto, petitioners' complaint-affidavits

are bereft of sufficient ground to engender a well-founded beliefthat crimes have been committed and the respondents, namely,Gonzales and Garcia, are probably guilty thereof and should beheld for trial.[27] Certainly, the Ombudsman did not commit graveabuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners' complaint-affidavits.

From the entirety of the records, it is beyond cavil that petitionersseek to attach criminal liability to an unequivocally civilundertaking gone awry. As pointed out by the Ombudsman,

although the petitioners may not have realized their expectationsin entering into the June 8, 1973 letter-agreement, such does notrender their consent thereto defective.

The execution and validity of this letter-agreement is connectedwith respondents' culpability for the felonies charged as theseinclude the element of whether they had juridical possession ofthe ABS-CBN properties. Essentially, petitioners claim they didnot freely give their consent to the letter-agreement. However,

on more than one occasion, petitioners have invoked the letter-agreement's provisions, and made claims thereunder.

First, petitioners met and discussed with respondents the fixing ofthe rental rate for the ABS-CBN studios in Quezon City asprovided in paragraph 2 of the letter-lease agreement. Next,petitioners' counsel wrote a demand letter to respondents for the


19/24

payment of rentals for the latter's occupation and use of ABS-CBN properties pursuant to the letter-agreement. Last and mostimportantly, petitioners have made a claim against the estate ofBenedicto based on the same June 8, 1973 letter-agreement.

This action of petitioners clearly evinces their ratification of theletter-agreement. As previously discussed, the civil liability ofrespondents Benedicto and Tan hinging on the charged criminalacts herein was extinguished upon their death. But other civilliabilities founded on other sources of obligations under Article1157 of the Civil Code may still be prosecuted either against theestate of the deceased if based on contract,[28] or against theexecutors and administrators of the deceased's estate if based on

quasi-delict.[29]

As petitioners have ratified the letter-agreement, even after thelifting of martial law and the toppling of the Marcos government,and advanced the validity of the letter-agreement in their claimagainst the estate of Benedicto, they cannot, in the same breath,aver that respondents' actuations in the execution of the letter-agreement were criminal in nature, or that the letter-agreementwas more ostensible than real and to insist on the prosecution of

respondents for felonies supposedly committed in connection withthis ubiquitous letter-agreement.[30]

In fine, the Ombudsman did not abuse his discretion indetermining that the allegations of petitioners againstrespondents are civil in nature, bereft of criminal character.Perforce, he was correct in dismissing petitioners' complaint-affidavits.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition ishereby DISMISSED. Roberto S. Benedicto and Salvador Tan aredropped as private respondents without prejudice to the filing ofseparate civil actions against their respective estates. Theassailed Joint Resolution and Order of the Ombudsman in OMB-0-94-1109 are AFFIRMED.


20/24

SO ORDERED.

Ynares-Santiago, (Chairperson), Austria-Martinez, Chico-Nazario, and Reyes, JJ., concur.

* Deceased.

[1]Rollo, pp. 36-54.

[2] Id. at 55-61.

[3] Id. at 62-99.

[4] Television Stations

Channel Location1. TV Channel 2 Metro Manila2. TV Channel 4 Metro Manila3. Batangas Channel 3 Batangas City4. DZBC TV Channel 3 Baguio City5. DYCB TV Channel 3 Cebu City6. DYXL TV Channel 4 Bacolod City

7. DXAW TV Channel 4 Davao CityRadio StationsFrequency/Call Sign Location1. DZXL (AM) 620 Khz Metro Manila2. DZAQ (AM) 960 Khz Metro Manila3. DZYK (FM) 101.1 Khz Metro Manila4. DZMM (AM) 1000 Khz Metro Manila5. DZWL (AM) 830 Khz Metro Manila6. DZMY (AM) 1160 Khz Metro Manila7. DZYL (AM) 1340 Khz Metro Manila

8. DZBC (AM) 690 Khz Baguio9. DZRI (AM) 1040 Khz Dagupan10. DZXI (AM) 660 Khz Laoag11. DZQM (AM) 1020 Khz Lucena12. DZRB (AM) 750 Khz Naga13. DZBL (AM) 690 Khz Legaspi14. DYPL (AM) 670 Khz Iloilo15. DYXL (AM) 870 Khz Bacolod


21/24


22/24

If no legal representative is named by the counsel for thedeceased party, of if the one so named shall fail to appear withinthe specified period, the court may order the opposing party,within a specified time, to procure the appointment of an

executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and thelatter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased.The court charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed bythe opposing party, may be recovered as costs.

[12]Rollo, pp. 395-399.

[13] G.R. No. L-40336, October 24, 1975, 67 SCRA 394.

[14]

G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994, 236 SCRA 239, 255-256.

[15] Now the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

[16] See RULES OF COURT, Rule 111, Sec. 1(a).

[17] Supra note 14.

[18]

416 Phil. 722 (2001).[19] Supra note 14.

[20]Rollo, pp. 475-491.

[21]SEC. 5. Claims which must be filed under the notice. If notfiled, barred; exceptions.--All claims from money against thedecedent, arising from contract, express or implied, whether the

same be due, not due, or contingent, all claims for funeralexpenses and expenses for the last sickness of the decedent, andjudgment for money against the decedent, must be filed withinthe time limited in the notice; otherwise they are barred forever,except that they may be set forth as counterclaims in any actionthat the executor or administrator commences an action, orprosecutes an action already commenced by the deceased in his


23/24

lifetime, the debtor may set forth by answer the claims he hasagainst the decedent, instead of presenting them independent tothe court as herein provided, and mutual claims may be set offagainst each other in such action; and if final judgment is

rendered in favor of the defendant, the amount so determinedshall be considered the true balance against the estate, as thoughthe claim had been presented directly before the court in theadministration proceedings. Claims not yet due, or contingent,may be approved at their present value.

[22] 1987 CONSTITUTION, Art. XI, Sec. 13(1).

[23]Republic v. Desierto, G.R. No. 135123, January 22, 2007, 512

SCRA 57.[24] G.R. No. 139675, July 21, 2006, 496 SCRA 112.

[25] Id. at 121-122.

[26] See Presidential Commission on Good Government v.Desierto, G.R. No. 139296, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 207,216.

[27] See RULES OF COURT, Rule 112, Sec. 1.

[28] See RULES OF COURT, Rule 86, Sec. 5.

[29] RULES OF COURT, Rule 87, Sec, 1.

SECTION 1.Actions which may and which may not be broughtagainst executor or administrator. - No action upon a claim for

the recovery of money or debt or interest thereon shall becommenced against the executor or administrator; but actions torecover real or personal property, or an interest therein, from theestate, or to enforce a lien thereon, and actions to recoverdamages for an injury to person or property, real or personal,may be commenced against him.


24/24

[30] See Articles 1390 (2), 1391, 1392, 1393 and 1396 of the CivilCode.

Art. 1390. x x x

(2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake, violence,intimidation, undue influence or fraud.Art. 1391. The action for annulment shall be brought within fouryears.This period shall begin: In cases of intimidation, violence orundue influence, from the time the defect of the consent ceases.In case of mistake or fraud, from the time of the discovery of thesame.And when the action refers to contracts entered into by minors or

other incapacitated persons, from the time the guardianshipceases.Art. 1392. Ratification extinguishes the action to annul a voidablecontract.Art. 1393. Ratification may be effected expressly or tacitly. It isunderstood that there is a tacit ratification if, with knowledge ofthe reason which renders the contract voidable and such reasonhaving ceased, the person who has a right to invoke it shouldexecute an act which necessarily implies an intention to waive his

right.Art. 1396. Ratification cleanses the contract from all its defectsfrom the moment it was constituted.

ABS-CBN v OMB

Documents

Transcript of ABS-CBN v OMB