Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Diliman, Quezon City

CHICKY GRACE BOYLER,

Complainant,

- versus - OMB-L-C-0290
For: Violations of Sections
3(a), (e) and (g) of Republic Act
No. 3019, Republic Act Nos.
9184 and 3571 and
Presidential Decree 1096

FLYNN RIDER, ET. AL,

Respondents.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

RESPONDENTS, FLYNN RIDER, GREGORIO C. CORTEZ,

EDUARDO MANZANO, ET.AL, through the undersigned counsel unto
this Honorable OFFICE most respectfully move and pray for the
partial reconsideration of the Resolution issued in OMB-L-C-16-
0290 filed by Rhodalyn Hanif against respondents for Violations
of Sections 3(a), (e) and (g) of Republic Act No. 3019, Republic Act
Nos. 9184 and 3571 and Presidential Decree 1096 and in support
hereof, most respectfully states THAT:

1. The Petitioners on Aug 5, 2012 received a copy of the

Resolution in OMB-L-C-16-0290 issued by The Honorable Office of
the Ombudsman, hence, they have five (5) days from receipt thereof
or until which is the last day falls on a Saturday), within which to
file the present motion. Hence, the instant Motion for
Reconsideration was filed within the prescribed period.

2. The dispositive portion of the Resolution states:

“WHEREFORE, this Office finds probable cause

to INDICT respondents Flynn Rider, et. al, for Violation
of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. Let the
corresponding Information be Filed against them before
the proper court.

The charges for violation of Section 3 (a) and (g)

of Republic Act No. 3019, Republic Act No. 9184,

Page 1 of 10
 Republic of the Philippines
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
Diliman, Quezon City

Republic Act No. 3571 and Presidential Decree 1096

against respondent John Doe are DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.”

A copy of the Resolution is attached hereto as Annex “A”

3. This motion for partial reconsideration respectfully

submits that this Honorable Office erred in finding probable
cause to indict the herein respondents/movants for violation of
Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 for the following reasons:

4. This Office ruled that while there was no restriction on

the use of the seven lots which are the subject of the lease contract;
that the adoption of Swiss Challenge method is recognize by law;
and dismissed the charged for violation of Section 3 (g) of RA 3019,
the respondents, according to this Office, by disregarding the
requirements set forth in Republic Act 6975, as amended by RA
7718, they acted with manifest impartiality, evident bad faith or
gross negligence thus, respondents should be held liable for
violation of section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019.

5. However, respondents believed that the alleged

transgression of law should not be the sole basis in determining the
criminal liability in the absence of the elements of Section 3 (e) of
RA 3019, much more when this Honorable Office made a
pronouncement on the contrary.

6. Section 3 (e) Republic Act 3019, states that and we

quote:

“Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In

addition to acts or omissions of public officers already
penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute
corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby
declared to be unlawful:

xxx

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party,

including the Government, or giving any private party
any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in
the discharge of his official administrative or judicial
functions through manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision
shall apply to officers and employees of offices or

Page 2 of 10
 Republic of the Philippines
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
Diliman, Quezon City

government corporations charged with the grant of

licenses or permits or other concessions.

x x x”

7. In the case of OSCAR R. AMPIL, Petitioner, vs. THE

HON. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, POLICARPIO L.
ESPENESIN, Registrar, Register of Deeds, Pasig City, FRANCIS
SERRANO, YVONNE S. YUCHENGCO, and GEMA O.
CHENG, Respondents. (G.R. No. 192685 July 31, 2013) and OSCAR
R. AMPIL, Petitioner, vs. POLICARPIO L. ESPENESIN, Respondent
(G.R. No. 199115), the Supreme Court provides for the elements
of the said offense, to wit:

“Whereas, paragraph (e) of the same section lists the

following elements:

(1) the offender is a public officer;

(2) the act was done in the discharge of the
public officer’s official, administrative or judicial
functions;
(3) the act was done through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable
negligence; and
(4) the public officer caused any undue injury
to any party, including the Government, or gave
any unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference.”

8. The Supreme Court in the same case further elucidates

that:

“In Sison v. People of the Philippines, we

expounded on Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019:
The third element of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 may
be committed in three ways, i.e., through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence. Proof of any of these three in connection
with the prohibited acts mentioned in Section 3(e) of RA
3019 is enough to convict.
Explaining what "partiality," "bad faith" and
"gross negligence" mean, we held:
"Partiality" is synonymous with "bias" which
"excites a disposition to see and report matters as they
are wished for rather than as they are." "Bad faith does
not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it

Page 3 of 10
 Republic of the Philippines
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
Diliman, Quezon City

imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral

obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach
of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it
partakes of the nature of fraud." "Gross negligence
has been so defined as negligence characterized by the
want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a
situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently
but willfully and intentionally with a conscious
indifference to consequences in so far as other persons
may be affected. It is the omission of that care which
even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take
on their own property."

9. In the instant complaint, while the first element is

present, the respondents being public officers, the rest of the
elements laid down in the aforesaid case are not present in order to
indict the respondents for allegedly violating the said law.

10. The Resolution in the criminal charge finding probable

cause to indict the Respondents ruled that there was no
substantial compliance with the proper procedure, particularly on
the 60 day prescribed period under Republic Act 7718, which
therefore shows that there was evident bad faith, manifest
partiality or gross negligence with clear intent to deny other
prospective project proponent is bereft of any merit.

11. Moreover, this Honorable Office itself resolved to

dismiss the charges against the respondents for grave misconduct,
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, abuse of
authority, dishonesty and neglect of duty, thereby negating the
presence of element number three (3) of Section 3(e), RA 3019.

12. Considering the quantum of evidence required in both

administrative and criminal case, the dismissal of cases for grave
offenses in the administrative case (that requires substantial
evidence), negates their liability in the criminal case that requires
proof beyond reasonable doubt.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Office that the Resolution in OMB-L-C-16-
0290 finding probable cause to indict herein Respondents for

Page 4 of 10
 Republic of the Philippines
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
Diliman, Quezon City

violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 be reconsidered

and dismissed for lack of merit.

Respondents likewise pray for such other reliefs which are

just and equitable under the premises.

ATTY. REPUNZEL LADY REYES

Quezon City
PTR No. 1234567/1-17-18/Quezon City
IBP No. 1234567/1-25-16/Manila
Roll of Attorneys No. 89765
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0056829

EXPLANATION

The foregoing Motion for Reconsideration has been served

upon the other parties, by registered mail/private courier
due to distance (geographical location), unpredictable traffic
situation, and time constraints, to effect personal service.

ATTY. REPUNZEL LADY REYES

Copy furnished:

Page 5 of 10