You are on page 1of 35

Republic of the Philippines counter-affidavit and those of two of his witnesses which were allegedly the same

SUPREME COURT documents filed with the provincial prosecutor of Tarlac in I.S. No. 90-010.
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
A.M. No. P-90-412 March 11, 1991 The Court noted that the acts complained of appear to have been committed by
respondent over a period of at least four (4) months, presumably even during office
MARISOL C. HIPOLITO, complainant, hours, and it does not appear that he was granted any leave of absence therefor
from his official station. Hence, on October 1, 1990, the Court resolved to refer the
vs. administrative case to Judge Bernardo P. Pardo, Executive Judge of the Regional
ELMER R. MERGAS, Deputy Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, Trial Court of Manila, for investigation, report and recommendation. 6
Manila, respondent.
On January 22, 1991, the investigating judge submitted his report and
RESOLUTION recommendation, with the following findings of fact which are borne out by the
evidence:
PER CURIAM:p
1. Elmer R. Mergas, at all times material hereto, has been a deputy sheriff
Respondent, Elmer R. Mergas, a deputy sheriff of the Regional Trial Court, Branch of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 46, duly appointed and
46, Manila was charged by herein complainant Marisol C. Hipolito, an applicant for a performing his duties as such.
small scale mining permit, on January 4, 1990 in the Office of the Prosecutor,
Province of Tarlac, with acts allegedly amounting to the crime of swindling or 2. Sometime in September, 1989, a certain Mirasol (sic) Hipolito, together
estafa. 1 with Abel Mergas, respondent's brother, approached him and asked (for)
his help in connection with her application with the Bureau of Mines for a
On January 18, 1990, a copy of an affidavit complaint, dated January 4, 1990, small scale mining permit for pumice.
charging herein respondent with grave misconduct and involving the same facts
subject of the aforesaid criminal case, together with its corresponding attachments, 3. Although such undertaking was not part of his work as deputy sheriff,
was received in the Office of the Court Administrator. 2 respondent acceded to the request.

In a resolution of April 30, 1990 in I.S. No. 90-010 of the office of the aforesaid 4. Consequently, on September 22, 1989, respondent deputy sheriff
provincial prosecutor, the charge for estafa was dismissed on the theory that the caused the filing of an application for small scale mining permit for pumice
evidence shows that there was no unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence on the part in behalf of Marisol Hipolito with the Bureau of Mines, Regional Office,
of respondent, and the issue of falsification was not ruled upon since no evidence San Fernando, Pampanga.
proving the same was submitted for proper appreciation and consideration. 3
5. However, the site applied for was claimed by another person and the
On the administrative case, in a resolution of this Court, dated July 9, respondent suggested another site. This second site was not acceptable
1990, 4 respondent was required to comment on the affidavit-complaint filed against to the applicant and the applicant submitted a plan for still another site in
him. On January 26, 1990, respondent filed his comment, 5 together with his San Luis, Tarlac, Tarlac which was covered by an application of another
person. Consequently, the application could not be given due course.

6. In connection with such application, respondent sheriff received from sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Consequently, his Honor recommended
Marisol Hipolito the sum of P14,200.00 which was spent for the following: the penalty of suspension from office for a period of six (6) months without pay
effective immediately.
P4,500.00, for the survey conducted on September 16 & 17,1989
Respondent failed to refute the fact that he was indeed involved in the work and
P600.00, for filing fee of the application processes involved in the application for the small scale mining permit for
complainant Marisol C. Hipolito. This clearly shows that respondent failed to
P4,000.00, for project information filed on October 17, 1989 observe and maintain that degree of dedication to the duties and responsibilities
required of him as a deputy sheriff. Thus, it bears mention at this juncture that
P3,000.00, for verification fee of the site on November 28, 1989 although he appears to have been exonerated by the prosecutor of the criminal
charges proffered against him, such absolution is not per se a bar to administrative
P3,500.00, for the survey of another site on December 7-8, 1989 sanctions where called for by the malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance of a
public officer.
P2,000.00, for travelling expenses, food and other expenses in following
up the application. A deputy sheriff, as an officer of the court whose duties form an integrated part of
the administration of justice, may be properly punished, even with a penalty short of
Respondent claims that Marisol Hipolito still owes him P3,400.00. dismissal or suspension from office, by this tribunal which exercises administrative
supervision over the judicial branch of the Government, for an action committed in
7. On January 4, 1990, Mirasol Hipolito filed with the Provincial Prosecutor
violation of the Rules of Court and which impedes and detracts from a fair and just
of Tarlac a complaint for estafa against respondent deputy sheriff.
administration of justice. 7

8. In his resolution dated April 30, 1990, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
While "moonlighting" is not normally considered as a serious misconduct,
Gregorio R. Bautista found that "complainant delivered sums of money to
nonetheless, by the very nature of the position held by respondent, it obviously
the respondent that involves the duty for the respondent to help her work
amounts to a malfeasance in office. In sum, he is bound, virtute officii, to bring to the
for her application and approval of a small scale mining permit with the
discharge of his duties that prudence, caution and attention which careful men
Bureau of Mines" but "there was no unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence
usually exercise in the management of their own affairs. 8
that is the essence of swindling and deceit". Consequently, the Assistant
Prosecutor recommended that the case be dismissed which was duly Finally, public service requires utmost integrity and strictest discipline. A public
approved by the Provincial Prosecutor. servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity. This
yardstick has been imprinted in the 1973 Constitution under Section 1 of Article XIII,
The investigating judge submitted that the acts of respondent deputy sheriff are
thus: "Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employment shall serve with
improper and not conducive to the best interest of the service. Respondent was held
the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency and shall remain
to have committed acts which may be called "moonlighting" and which are contrary
accountable to the people." 9 This is reiterated more emphatically in the 1987
to civil service rules and regulations. He observed that respondent is not supposed
Constitution. 10
to be following up extraneous matters outside Manila, in other government offices
and for private individuals, to the prejudice of his work in the judiciary as a deputy

WHEREFORE, as correctly evaluated and recommended by the investigating judge, 1 Rollo, 2-4.
the Court finds respondent Deputy Sheriff Elmer R. Mergas guilty of serious 2 Ibid., 6.
3 Ibid., 10-13.
misconduct in office or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. He is 4 Ibid., 7.
hereby SUSPENDED from office for a period of six (6) months without pay effective 5 Ibid., 8-9.
immediately. Let a copy of this resolution be entered in the personal records of 6 Ibid., 51.
7 Bareno vs. Cabauatan, etc., 151 SCRA 293 (1987).
respondent. It is so ordered.
8 Peñalosa vs. Viscaya, Jr., 84 SCRA 298 (1978).
9 Ganaden vs. Bolasco, 64 SCRA 50 (1975).
Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur. 10 Section 1, Art. XI provides: "Public office is a public trust. Public officers must at all times
be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty
and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives."
Footnotes
Republic of the Philippines corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service. It is intended
SUPREME COURT to further promote morality in public administration. A public office must indeed be a
Manila public trust. Nobody can cavil at its objective; the goal to be pursued commands the
assent of all. The conditions then prevailing called for norms of such character. The
EN BANC times demanded such a remedial device." 6 It should occasion no surprise,
therefore, why the 1971 Constitutional Convention, with full awareness of the
G.R. Nos. L-50581-50617 January 30, 1982 continuity need to combat the evils of graft and corruption, included the above-cited
provision.
RUFINO V. NUÑEZ petitioner,
vs. Petitioner in this certiorari and prohibition proceeding assails the validity of the
SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. Presidential Decree creating the Sandiganbayan, He was accused before such
respondent Court of estafa through falsification of public and commercial documents
committed in connivance with his other co-accused, all public officials, in several
cases. 7 The informations were filed respectively on February 21 and March 26,
FERNANDO, C.J.: 1979. Thereafter, on May 15 of that year, upon being arraigned, he filed a motion to
quash on constitutional and jurisdictional grounds. 8 A week later. respondent Court
In categorical and explicit language, the Constitution provided for but did not create denied such motion. 9 There was a motion for reconsideration filed the next day; it
a special Court, the Sandiganbayan with "jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases met the same fate. 10 Hence this petition for certiorari and prohibition It is the claim of
involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by public petitioner that Presidential Decree No. 1486, as amended, creating the respondent
officers and employees, including those in government-owned or controlled Court is violative of the due process, 11 equal protection, 12 and ex post
corporations, in relation to their office as may be determined by law." 1 It came into facto 13 clauses of the Constitution. 14
existence with the issuance in 1978 of a Presidential Decree. 2 Even under the 1935
Constitution, to be precise, in 1955, an anti-graft statute was passed, 3 to be The overriding concern, made manifest in the Constitution itself, to cope more
supplemented five years later by another act, 4 the validity of which was upheld effectively with dishonesty and abuse of trust in the public service whether
in Morfe v. Mutuc, 5 a 1968 decision. As set forth in the opinion of the Court: committed by government officials or not, with the essential cooperation of the
"Nothing can be clearer therefore than that the AntiGraft Act of 1960 like the earlier private citizens with whom they deal, cannot of itself justify any departure from or
statute was precisely aimed at curtailing and minimizing the opportunities for official

i. Favoritism and undue preference The petition then cannot be granted. that the general guarantees of the Bill of Rights. measure may cut into the rights to liberty and property.To whether a private citizen as petitioner is or a public official. while all other estafa indictees are entitled to appeal as a but a recognition of such power as already existing in favor of the incumbent matter of right covering both law and facts and to two appellate courts. far from being inspired by the attainment however. In the mere matter of discretion. the conditions not being different. then is not to be given a meaning that disregards what is. whatever restrictions cast on some in the Ferdinand E. M. dishonesty Idea of law. Vera 26 requiring that it "must be based on seeking to nullify Presidential Decree No. For the principle is that equal protection and security shall be be adjudged. is not necessarily assure that the general welfare be promoted. the 1976 Amendments made 3. which is the end of law. Petitioner. both in the privileges conferred and the liabilities imposed. " 17 Thus. Petitioner in his memorandum invokes the guarantee of equal protection in Court through Justice Laurel in People v. there is an affirmation of the ruling to equal protection. creating equally and uniformly on all persons under similar circumstances or that all persons respondent Court has not been demonstrated. by certiorari to the Supreme Court. Tuason & Co. It is to be made clear that the power of the then President and Prime Minister should be treated in the same fashion. That is beyond question. the urgency of which cannot be denied. and . or at the very least. With due recognition. The Sandiganbayan proceedings violates petitioner's right until martial law shall have been lifted. The constitutional guarantee Constitution came into force.there is only one of such law-making authority by the President during the period of Martial chance to appeal conviction. Justice Makasiar. Commission on Elections 18 decided in 1975. are analogous. What does it signify? To quote from substantial distinctions which make real differences. what does in fact exist . " 20 the Court of Appeals and thereafter to the Supreme Court. that a different procedure for the accused therein. 27 To repeat.. The unconstitutionality of such Decree cannot cannot be allowed. a regulatory offensive to the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Those adversely affected cannot be unaware of the ruling of this Court in Co Chiong v. 1486 as amended. namely. and must law's benefits to be available to all. " 23 Classification is thus not ruled out. it must be germane to the J. butressed by scholarly and diligent research. v. the issues raised by the exhaustive memorandum of the Solicitor General. . traditional two chances. Only thus could chance and favor be excluded and the affairs of men makes mention of the creation of a special court. . first to President during the period of Martial Law. the Constitution specifically coverage. 1973. when the present does not take into account the realities of the situation. equally aided in the study of discrimination that finds no support in reason. given to every person under circumstances which. 19 As the opinion went on to state: "It is not a grant of authority to legislate. Nor is the law susceptible to the reproach that it ought to have been aware as far back as January 17. included among which are . show that the governmental act assailed. however.. must be treated in the same manner.appeal as a matter of right became minimized into a of this Court in Aquino Jr. The premise underlying petitioner's contention on this point is set forth in his clear that he as incumbent President "shall continue to exercise legislative powers memorandum thus: " 1. considering that the classification satisfies the test announced by this 2. of the vigor and persistence of counsel of petitioner 15 in his pleadings of the common weal was prompted by the spirit of hostility.appeal likewise was shrunk and limited only to questions language of the ponente. If law be looked upon in terms of burden or charges. because . in the opinion that what in fact exists in the public service. that none be placed outside the sphere of its apply equally to each member of the class." 25 . instead of the Law. . 1486. It follows that those who may thereafter be tried by such court "cannot approximate the Ideal.e. While such competence under the 1973 Constitution contemplated that such an act should come from the National Assembly. those that fall within a class 1. v. 16 is of it being sufficient to quote from the Tuason decision anew "that the laws operate the view that the invalidity of Presidential Decree No. the Sandiganbayan 4 precisely in governed by that serene and impartial uniformity which is of the very essence of the response to a problem." 24 proceeding. excluding a review of the facts and trial evidence. Cuaderno 28 a 1949 may under such circumstances invoke the equal protection clause only if they can decision. the Court.that is hardly convincing. it must not be limited to existing conditions only.. Marcos to create the Sandiganbayan in 1978 is not challenged in this group equally binding on the rest. if not Identical. it dissipated "all doubts as to the legality of law. Land Tenure Administration: 21 "The Ideal situation is for the purposes of the law.disregard of constitutional rights." 22 There is recognition. moreover.

it made clear that when committed. than the law required at the time of the commission of the ponente himself and the late Justice Perfecto. when committed. as well as the Government. Every law that aggravates a crime. within the words and the intent of the prohibition. The post facto. For them its facto laws. or a proclamation of amnesty. and inflicts a greater punishment. does not suffer from any constitutional infirmity. . punishment. nor can it be seen in what way the act in question alters the situation makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent of petitioner to his disadvantage.. and punishes such action. excepting only less. or different. Every law that changes the This Court has spoken in no uncertain terms. (3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed. statutory right to appeal is therein embraced. than to be the only foundation for the claim. Mekin v. celebrated and judicious Sir William Blackstone in his commentaries. when committed. (4) alters the legal First Instance may commit error in his favor and wrongfully discharge him appears rules of evidences. and punishes such action. The Kay Villegas Kami 31 decision promulgated in 1970. The "lawful facto laws. 37 a 1798 decision of the United protection to which he has become entitled. " 35 There is relevance to the next petitioner. All these." 29 The scope of such a principle is not to be constricted. The first authoritative exposition provision. doing away with the requirement of unanimity under manifestly unjust and oppressive.' are technical. or (d) Which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or searching scrutiny of its rationale would demonstrate the lack of permisiveness of different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the such an argument. and had applicability to crimes committed before its enactment would not make the law ex acquired an appropriate meaning. in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful. Every law that protection" to which an accused "has become entitled" is qualified. the when done. and which was innocent when scope. not given a broad makes an action done before the passing of the law. 4th Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence. later Chief Justice Paras. by legislators. " in that decision. It may not be amiss to pursue the subject further. The contention that the challenged Presidential Decree is contrary to the ex post makes it greater than it was when committed. 2nd. or makes it greater than it was. public services or utilities. It gives him. 34 decided in 1903. and authors. and (6) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful 6. one reserving to "Filipino citizens of the operation of of what is prohibited by the ex post facto clause is found in Mekin v. Even the very language as to what falls with the category of conviction or acquittal. and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony . Which makes an action done before the passing of the law and which was innocent when done criminal. lawyers. A person can have no vested right in such a the law required at the time of the commission to regulate civil rights and remedies possibility. and receives seven of the nine Justices then composing this Court. in order to convict the offender. they had been in use long before the Revolution. and similar laws. It Wolfe. Wolfe is traceable to Calder v. To paragraph of the opinion of Justice Cooper: "The case clearly does not come within quote from the ponencia of Justice Makasiar: "An ex post facto law is one which: (1) this definition. considers an ex post facto law precisely in the same light I have done. Ist. It hardly can be argued that the mode of procedure provided for in the done. criminal. are of the Judiciary Act of 1948. In People v. Thus: "I will state what laws I consider ex post scrutiny of the above definition fails to sustain the claim of petitioner. His opinion is confirmed by . testimony. Thus: "An ex post facto law has been defined as one .the due process of law and equal protection clauses must "give way to [a] specific 5. such as the protection of a former States Supreme Court." 30 A more committed. than the law annexed to the crime." 38 The opinion of Justice Chase who spoke for Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code with eight votes sufficing for the imposition of the United States Supreme Court went on to state: "The expressions 'ex post the death sentence. (2) aggravates a crime. or (c) Which changes the punishment facto provision of the Constitution is similarly premised on the allegation that and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was "petitioner's right of appeal is being diluted or eroded efficacy wise . cited by offense in order to convict the defendant. Bull. supplies the most recent and binding pronouncement on the matter. 3rd. speaking through the then Justice. or makes it greater benefit of the appeal.." 32 Even the most careful this provision is well-nigh Identical. This is hardly a controversial matter. 36 only.(a) is certainly broad enough to cover the instant situation. or (b) Which aggravates a crime or 4. Vilo 33 a 1949 decision. were of the opinion that Section 9 the offense. and is intended than it was. and punishes such an act.

" 39 is required. leaving untouched all the for the most careful scrutiny of the testimony of the state. Only if crime. at the time of the adoption of the Dramayo. Would the omission of the Court of Appeals as an intermediate Appeals as a reviewing authority results in the loss "vital protection" of liberty. 1486. is to the same effect. The test as to whether the ex post facto clause is to sway judgment.his successor. The behalf. " 44 Then if convicted. who I esteem must be in the negative. Petitioner makes much. this Court has the duty if he virtue of which. forming a 7. Justice Harlan presumption of innocence 45 has been overcome. Appellants were not even called upon then to offer evidence on their the American Supreme Court. there is no recourse to the Court of Appeals. What Cannot be too also renders clear why the obstacles to declaring unconstitutional the challenged sufficiently stressed is that this Court in determining whether or not to give due Presidential Decree are well-nigh insuperable." 43 the judge below and thereafter the appellate tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that the crime had been committed precisely by the person on trial under such an 8. Petitioner relies on Thompson v. as was mentioned by an author. in the language of Justice Harlan in the just-citedThompson v. 48 It does seem The crucial words are "vital for the protection of life and liberty" of a defendant in a farfetched and highly unrealistic to conclude that the omission of the Court of criminal case. perhaps excessively so as is the wont of Harlan.the very same year when the Treaty of Paris.it is seeks a review to see whether any error of law was committed to justify a reversal of understandable why he did so. Utaha. Wooddeson and by the author of the Federalist. the him must survive the test of reason. at the time of but that it amounted to a crime. What is required then is moral certainty. for his extensive and accurate knowledge of the true principle of the three-judge court of a division of respondent Court. are not considered within the constitutional inhibition. 46 Thus: "Accusation is not. both oral and substantial protections with which the existing laws surrounds the person accused of documentary. Their freedom is forfeit only if the requisite quantum of proof necessary for opinion of the then Chief Justice Fuller. It is incumbent on the prosecution to demonstrate that time of the commission of the offense charged against him. Duncan v. failing which "the Presiding Justice shall designate two other justices from among the members of the Court to sit temporarily with them. his innocence or guilt is passed upon by superior to both. and Court has repeatedly reversed convictions on a showing that this fundamental and which he enjoyed at the time of the commission of the offense charged against him. There is need. Their guilt must be shown beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover. has a cutting edge. therefore. It is thus required that every successfully argued that there is a dilution of the right to appeal. American sovereignty over the Philippines was acquired . speaking for the Court. laid the responsibility for the offense charged: that not only did he perpetrate the act Utah decision taking "from an accused any right that was regarded. Certainly. the strongest suspicion must not be permitted review coming from this Court. is offered by the accused. After a review of the previous course to the petition for review must be convinced that the constitutional pronouncements of the American Supreme Court on this subject. the exhaustive opinion of the first Justice the judgment. this Court has always been committed. according to the fundamental law. 40 As it was decided by the American division of five justices. it cannot be exacting test should the sentence be one of conviction. To It was categorically stated that "the prescribing of different modes of procedure and such a standard. of the fact that there is no review of the facts. a unanimous vote government. The standard as to when procedure as in determining whether particular statutes by their operation take from there is proof of such weight to justify a conviction is set forth in People v. the abolition of courts and the creation of new ones. In the first place. tribunal deprive petitioner of a right vital to the protection of his liberty? The answer ." 47 This the adoption of the constitution as vital for the protection of life and liberty." 41An 1894 decision of culpability lies. and the concurrence of a majority of such division shall be Supreme Court in April of 1898 . by necessary for rendering judgment. It advocates. Missouri 42 was also cited by petitioner. as vital for the protection of life and liberty. conviction be in existence. as constitution. and which he enjoyed at the synonymous with guilt." basic right to De presumed innocent has been disregarded. In that sense. it cannot be said made this realistic appraisal: "The difficulty is not so much as to the soundness of that on the appellate level there is no way of scrutinizing whether the quantum of the general rule that an accused has no vested right in particular modes of evidence required for a finding of guilt has been satisfied. Mr. independently of whatever defense. Even from the standpoint then of the American decisions relied upon. The conscience must be satisfied that on the defendant could be disregarded. Admittedly under circumstance favoring his innocence be duly taken into account. an accused any right that was regarded. but it cuts both ways. The proof against Presidential Decree No.

" 53 The Separate Opinions above formulation is a reiteration of what was decided by the American Supreme Court in a case of Philippine origin. Justice Makasiar. then he has had due process of law. Tuason as ponente. Nor should there be any doubt either that defendant charged with crime whatever forms of procedure are of the essence of an a review by certiorari of a decision of conviction by the Sandiganbayan calls for strict opportunity to defend. 1910 to be precise. keep the balance true. concurs and dissent then. is sedulous in maintaining for a contested. upon colleague. J. Massachusetts. it may be said that if an accused has been heard in a court of competent jurisdiction. It is true that other Sections of the Decree could have been worded to the exhaustive forty-two page memorandum of petitioner. and. Melencio-Herrera. Strong as my feeling in this respect is. as we have seen. with his conviction being made to rest on evidence that is not tainted with falsity after full opportunity for him to rebut it and the sentence being imposed in accordance with a valid law. emphasized: "The law. This Court holds that petitioner has been unable to make a case calling for a such a provision was conceived to guarantee the Sandigan's independence. There is the allegation of lack of fairness. and Ericta. 51 this Court with Justice Concepcion.9." 50 What is required for compliance with the due process mandate in criminal proceedings? In Arnault v. is due to the accuser also. It commends itself for approval. 1606 has notice to him. The decision does not go as far as passing on any similar protection. 1486 as amended by certainly unwise to assume that the Supreme Court's independence is unworthy of Presidential Decree No. however. I must say emphatically that if 10. That is a proposition too plain to be opinion. they Supreme Court decision. But justice. We are to Aquino. In Constitution. 49 Again this citation cuts both must be construed in such a way as preclude any possible erosion on the powers ways. only four and a half pages avoid any constitutional objection. Plana and Escolin. 1606. Justice Cardozo. Guerrero. It is assumed. the petition is dismissed. no ruling is called for. Thus: "This court has had frequent occasion to consider the requirements of due process of law as applied to BARREDO. who penned the vested in this Court by the Constitution. J. of course. took no part. though due to the accused. succinctly Identified it with "a fair and impartial trial and reasonable opportunity for the preparation of defense. No costs. proof. Privileges so fundamental as to be inherent in every concept observance of the constitutional presumption of innocence. with an opportunity to be heard. concur. The argument based on denial of due process has much less to recommend it. and a judgment awarded within the unduly and improperly placed the Sandiganbayan on a higher plane than the authority of a constitutional law. The concept of fairness must not be strained till it is narrowed to a filament. that the court that rendered the decision is one of competent jurisdiction. due process is satisfied if the accused is "informed as to why he is proceeded against and what charge he has to meet.D." 55 Supreme Court insofar as the matter of automatic releases of appropriations is concerned. I am aware that my question not affecting the right of petitioner to a trial with all the safeguards of the . concuring: criminal procedure. however crushing may be the pressure of incriminating WHEREFORE. and I fully agree with the view that P. JJ. Ong Chang Wing v.. Pecson. Abad Santos. Much is view is given expression in the concurring and dissenting opinion of Justice made of what is characterized as "the tenor and thrust" of the leading American Makasiar that in such a case to save the Decree from the dire fate of invalidity.. it is declaration of unconstitutionality of Presidential Decree No. As of now. of a fair trial that could be acceptable to the thought of reasonable men will be kept inviolate and inviolable. The were devoted to its discussion." 52 In criminal proceedings Fernandez. Mr. JJ. generally speaking. and proceeded against under the I have read with great care the concurring and dissenting opinion of our learned orderly processes of law. which definitely should not be the case. Jr. With his usual felicitous choice of words.. Snyder v.. United States 54 decided during the period of American rule. and only punished after inquiry and investigation.

and the Sandiganbayan is one of those courts. it is obviously improper to make appeals therefrom appealable to another collegiate court with the same number of I regret. I cannot agree with the constitutional structures expressed by judges composing it. Otherwise. that the arguments against the constitutionality of P. that the special composition of the pronouncement. In expressing myself as I do. as long as the evidence relied upon by committed is not a constitutional abnormality. 1606 must of constitutional necessity be understood as Sandiganbayan cannot be unconstitutional.objection to the provision in question is not ground enough to render the same expeditiously in order to curtail any fast surging tide of evil-doing against the social unconstitutional. the Constitution ordains measure. Since the Sandiganbayan is a collegiate trial court. We must bear in mind that the Sandiganbayan's primary and Justice Makasiar. as if they have originated therefrom.D. I am just adding my little voice of order. Of course. the constitutional requirement is complied with. 1606 Court may review the decisions of the Sandiganbayan only on questions of law does does not infringe the constitutional injunction against ex-post facto laws. power. such "special" character endowed to the Charter against legislature's attribute of alteration. I am more inclined to agree with our honored and distinguished primordial reason for being is to insure the people's faith and confidence in our Chief Justice. Section 5(5) Collaboration times. To be particularly noted must be the fact that the mandate of the Constitution that the National It must be against the backdrop of recent historical events that I feel We must view Assembly "shall create". the Sandiganbayan. pleading. practice and procedure in all courts. That the Supreme Sandiganbayan and the special procedure of appeal provided for it in P. a rule of court treated differently from the ordinary courts. and so under Section 1 of Article X. the method of appeal provided by P. 1606 advanced by its restlessness in the later '60's and the early '70's particularly of the youth who are critics lack sufficient persuavity. the Constitution mandates that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. True. it is not under the Article on the Judiciary (Article X) but the Sandiganbayan. But once the Sandiganbayan makes such a I am of the considered opinion. try and decide crimes already point of view was beyond reasonable doubt.D. it Sandiganbayan carries with it certain concomittants which compel that it should be is the Supreme Court that cannot modify or amend. At this point. as a court it exercises judicial originated by the legislative power. I cannot see how the new procedure of appeal from such courts of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning can be faulted as violative of the Charter. it must be subordinate to the Supreme Court. I agree with Justice Makasiar that the rule-making power Accordingly. We have only to recall that the activism and abroad.D. the prosecution of offenses which in the public interest must be dealt with more . and the rule-making power of the Supreme Court is not insulated by the it to be "a special court. More.D. whose learning in constitutional law is duly respected here and public officers more than it used to be. nonetheless. I must emphasize that P. the Tanodbayan or Ombudsman was conceived and as its courts. If a new or special court can be signifying that any rule it may promulgate cannot have force and effect unless legitimately created to try offenses already committed. Constitutionally speaking.D. like the People's Court of approved by the Supreme Court. there would be chaos in the Sandiganbayan in arriving at such conclusion is substantial. judicial structure designed by the makers of the 1971 Constitution. in criminal cases. always concerned with the future of the country were caused by their conviction that graft and corruption was already intolerably pervasive in the government and It should not be surprising nor unusual that the composition of and procedure in the naturally they demanded and expected effective and faster and more expeditious Sandiganbayan should be designed and allowed to be different from the ordinary remedies. 1606 from decisions of the granted to it by P." To my mind. Indeed. I view the Sandiganbayan as sui generis in the necessary counterpart. The not. in my opinion. And in this respect. 1606 is a legislative under the article on Accountability of Public Officers. alter the fact that the conviction of the accused from the factual creation of a special court to take cognizance of. "special" as it may be. protest in order that hopefully those concerned may hear it loud and clear and thus give the Supreme Court its deserved superior status over the Sandiganbayan. however. amendment or repeal. much less repeal. Thus.

1606 is a more iron-clad the government or any of its instrumentalities or agencies are guaranteed the right guarantee that no person accused before such special court will ever be finally to appeal to two appellate courts . and thereafter to the convicted without his guilt appearing beyond reasonable doubt as mandated by the Supreme Court. Estafa and malversation of private funds are on the same category Constitution. which are believe that the accused has a better guarantee of a real and full consideration of separable from the valid provisions.to the Supreme Court (par. government instrumentalities and government-owned and -controlled corporations. NO. remain valid and complete as a statute under P. Moreover. P. Persons who are charged with estafa or malversation of funds not belonging to seen and observed the witnesses as provided for in P.D. the provisions of We wonder about the method of review of the decisions of the Sandiganbayan P. 1606? With all due respect to the observation of Justice Makasiar. who. and no one has yet been heard to say the contrary. but also the constitutional provisions on the power factors are the intellectual competence. as graft and corruption committed by public officers. With more reason should this rule apply to the review of I the decision of a collegiate trial court. SECTION 7 OF P.first.D. to the Court of Appeals. except in cases where pivotal points are shown to have been overlooked by them. But a of supervision of the Supreme Court over inferior courts as well as its rule-making review by two appellate tribunals of the same case certainly ensures better justice to authority.D. All the relevant cases on due process.resist from the very constant jurisprudence that the appellate courts should rely on the evaluation of the beginning any attempt to assault his constitutional liberties. The fact that the Sandiganbayan is a collegiate trial court does not generate any substantial distinction to validate this invidious discrimination Some provisions in the Sandiganbayan violate not only the constitutional Three judges sitting on the same case does not ensure a quality of justice better guarantees of due process as wen as equal protection of the law and against the than that meted out by a trial court presided by one judge. the Supreme Court's power of review It should be noted that petitioner does not challenge the constitutionality of P.Since the creation of the Court of Appeals.D. power to reweigh the evidence but only to determine its substantiality.D. why should It should likewise be emphasized that in the opinion of the Writer. We have never been supposed to exercise the and its power of supervision over inferior courts. concurring and dissenting: Sec. The ultimate decisive enactment of ex post facto laws. I strongly believe that the review of the decisions of the Sandiganbayan. If that was proper and legal. 1606 DENIES PETITIONER DUE Supreme Court has no power to reverse its findings of fact. The Constitution does not authorize the lawmaker to limit the right of appeal of the . over decisions of the former even in criminal cases has been limited statutorily or by 1606 on the ground that it impairs the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court the rules only to legal questions. 3. graft and corruption committed by officers and employees of the government. with only the usual PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. the accused and to the people. 1606). are only allowed one appeal . there is no need to repeat them here. MAKASIAR. the Solicitor General. when the Court of Appeals passes on an appeal in a criminal cases. whose three justices have actually 1. industry and integrity of the trial judge. No. J. exceptions already known to all lawyers and judges.D. evidence by the trial judges. 1606 which he does not impugn. No. equal protection of the law and ex post It should be stressed that the Constitution merely authorizes the law-making facto laws. have been cited by the petitioner. and the majority authority to create the Sandiganbayan with a specific limited jurisdiction only over opinion. No. and yet the PARAGRAPH 3.. under the Decree creating the Sandiganbayan. 7. hence. the evidence and the determination of the facts where there are three judges actually seeing and observing the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses. I and therefore can be given effect minus the challenged portions. It is Our The basic caveat for the embattled citizen is obsta principiis . it has only the records to rely on.

forming a division of five Justices. Section 7 of P. the Presiding Justice shall designate decisions of the Sandiganbayan can only be reviewed by the Supreme Court two other Justices from among the members of the Court to sit temporarily with through certiorari. Under Section 5 thereof. pp. 296. No. otherwise known as R. 674-675). . the unanimous vote of three Justices in a division shall be necessary for the pronouncement of the judgment. which can appraise the evidence and Division to constitute a special division of five members. the presumption of Rights remains as restrictions on the lawmaker in creating the Sandiganbayan innocence is still violated. People vs. In the event that the 2. 77 Phil. Even if in certiorari proceedings.. 548. than graft and corruption. when three more members of the Sandiganbayan will be appointed to complete its IV.D. sitting in three divisions of 3 Justices each (Sec. two other greater guarantee of justice in criminal cases when the trial court's judgment is members may be designated by the Presiding Justice to sit temporarily with the subject to review by two appellate tribunals. the Supreme Court is thereby deprived of the process clause of the Constitution. Art. Cruz. 1606). Then again. which are less serious against him. paragraph 3 of Section 7 of P. Sierra. Furthermore.D. membership of nine. and therefore also already part of procedural due process to which the innocence in his favor which is enjoyed by all other defendants in other criminal petitioner was entitled at the time of the alleged commission of the crime charged cases. People vs. No. The fact that there are only the law with greater objectivity. (Marcos vs. and not questions of fact nor division shall be necessary for rendering judgment. This situation patently diminishes to an appreciable degree the chances of Sandiganbayan only to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. 19. No. 1606 is precluded from reviewing questions of fact and the evidence submitted It is also clear that paragraph 3. because proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be pursuant to the constitutional directive. Fernando. No. there are only 6 members of the Sandiganbayan or two divisions actually first by the Court of Appeals. Section 5 of P. which denies him the equal protection of the law as against those who will be prosecuted presumption can only be overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt (See. Casiano. instead of 6 members from whom to select the two other Justices to compose a special division of five in case a member of the division 3.A. 555. there is operating. 3. In other criminal cases involving offenses not as serious as graft and corruption. Limiting the power of review by the Supreme Court of convictions by the dissents. equated with substantial evidence. likewise an accused for an acquittal. 68 Phil. 1606 trenches upon the due before the Sandiganbayan. P. 46 SCRA 717. No.D. Phil. the Supreme Court. including defendants accused of only light felonies. 1 SCRA 478 [1961].accused convicted by the Sandiganbayan to only the Supreme Court. against the passage of ex post facto laws. 1606 violates the constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused. when a member of the Division dissents. 96. 1606. To repeat. likewise limits the reviewing power of the Supreme Court only to them.and therefore subverts the constitutional presumption of amended. No. detachment and impartiality unaffected as they are 6 members now composing the Sandiganbayan limits the choice of the Presiding by views and prejudices that may be engendered during the trial. People vs. findings or conclusions of the trial court. No. to determine whether the trial P. Applied to the petitioner.D.D. 1974 ed.D. Constitution. 104 [1939]. Because the Supreme Court under P. the Sandiganbayan is composed of a presiding Justice and 8 discussion hereunder concerning the violation of the constitutional prohibition associate Justices. by providing that the three Justices do not reach a unanimous vote.by proof generating moral certainty 17 and 29 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. At present. The Bill of Sandiganbayan is supported by the substantial evidence. and then by the Supreme Court. 1973 Constitution). This is also reiterated in Our 4. Consequently. 1606 therefore denies the accused advantages and privileges accorded to court gravely abused its discretion. because the right to appeal to the Court of constitutional power to determine whether the guilt of the accused has been Appeals and thereafter to the Supreme Court was already secured under Sections established by proof beyond reasonable doubt . all questions of fact and of law are reviewed. as as to his culpability -. can inquire into whether the judgment of the other defendants indicted before other trial courts. Moreno. Justice to only three. and the concurrence of the majority of such question of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.

).criminal cases. This right to a review of the judgment being down-graded by Section 14 of P. annual allegedly committed prior to 1978. Under the 1982 Appropriations Act.D.5. NO. The indictment against herein petitioner accused him of graft and appellate court. Consequently. the 1. p. before the creation of the Sandiganbayan on December 10. the original government-owned or -controlled corporations. obstructed or impeded by the delay or refusal on the part of the Budget Ministry to release the needed funds for the operation of the courts. But even under Section 13 of the .emphasizes the peril to the independence of the Judiciary. released in accordance with the schedule submitted by the Sandiganbayan" 1606. Such reasonable doubt to rebut the presumption (Sec. The disparity between the Court of Appeals 1978. the Sandiganbayan is a collegiate trial court and not an become entitled. No. There is no such provision in any law or in the. Branch being constituted by the merger or union of the Executive and the Batasang Pambansa . which effectively makes the of conviction by two appellate tribunals on both factual and legal issues. the Court of Appeals was no P.the first a criminal conviction. 52. review by certiorari impairs the constitutional by the Budget Ministry upon request therefor by the Supreme Court. its instrumentalities and 10. 682 was enacted on September 25. 1606. 1977 up to and including January 12. 1606 thus in effect reduces the quality and quantity of the evidence requisite for only other Branch of our modified parliamentary-presidential government .D. 13. No. 1486. tribunal exercising appellate jurisdiction over all cases . because it less testimony than the law required at the time the crime was committed. 1606 VIOLATES THE GUARANTEE AGAINST EX POST FACTO LAWS . No. and estafa were entitled to a review of a trial court's judgment of conviction by the Court of Appeals on all questions of fact and law. and thereafter by the Supreme 6. No. all persons accused of malversation of public funds or graft and corruption and the Sandiganbayan is too patent to require extended demonstration. This provides that "the appropriation for the Sandiganbayan shall be automatically vital right of the accused has been taken away on December 10. 1978 by P. 35 SCRA 429) that an ex post People's Court Act could not provide for appeal to the Court of Appeals which was facto law is one which alters the rules of evidence and authorizes conviction upon revived only on October 4. 1606 which expressly repealed P. 1978" graft and corruption as well as violation of the prohibited drug law committed by (Annex A. because at the time the People's Court Act or C. special civil actions. IV. No. was already Sandiganbayan superior to the Supreme Court. 1606 further displays such arbitrary classification. 1946 by R. WE ruled in Kay Villegas Kami (Oct. The Sandiganbayan could not be likened to the People's Court exclusively trying cases against national security whose decisions were appealable directly only to the II Supreme Court (Sec.D.D.D." deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has As heretofore stated. No.D. discrimination against the Supreme Court . or places expressly the Sandiganbayan on "the same level as the Court of Appeals. As a necessary consequence. 37 issued by President Sergio Osmena soon after the Liberation. because said Section 14 expressly part of the constitutional right of due process enjoyed by the petitioner in 1977. 22. civil cases. the funds for the Supreme Court and the entire Judiciary can only be released 2. P. 1978 by P. appropriations act in favor of the Supreme Court. CA 682). whose The conviction of petitioner is thus facilitated or made easier by P.D. operations can be jeopardized and the administration of justice consequently which was not so prior to its promulgation. 1978. The Court of Appeals is an appellate charter of the Sandiganbayan promulgated on June 11. No. 19. Section 1 of P. special proceedings. thus placing herein petitioner under a great disadvantage for crimes he (emphasis supplied). which requires proof beyond compliance with such request is hampered by bureaucratic procedures. long before the creation of the Sandiganbayan on December public officers and employees of the government. 1970. rec. 1945.the highest tribunal of the land and the No. 24.D. Art. Even the Supreme Court is not spared from such odious discrimination as it is Court also on both questions of fact and law. No. and administrative cases appealable from As heretofore stated. 1973 Constitution). 1945 by Executive Order No. the trial courts or quasi-judicial bodies.A. its jurisdiction is purely limited to criminal and civil cases involving corruption committed "from July 20. 1606. Sometimes presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.A. longer existing then as it was abolished on March 10.

III That the Sandiganbayan is a specially favored court is further shown by the General SECTION 9 OF P. NO. The valid provisions amply determine disputed that the Sandiganbayan is an inferior court. Edu vs. 10. supervision vested in the Supreme Court over all inferior courts (Sec. 1606. 1606. to pro. and now to do it . but not necessarily binding on. Sandiganbayan does not include the authority to exempt the Sandiganbayan from the constitutional supervision of the Supreme Court. 1. 1606 SUBVERTS THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF SUPERVISION The authority delegated expressly by the Constitution to the law-maker to create the OVER INFERIOR COURTS INCLUDING THE SANDIGANBAYAN . entire law unconstitutional if the challenged portions are inseparable from the valid aggravates the violation of the constitutional power of supervision of the Supreme portions. who is to do it. Court of Tax Appeals. 20. No. Appropriations Act of 1982). Gen. It cannot be necessarily nullifying the entire P.D. No.People's Court Act appeal to the Supreme Court is not limited to the review by 3. 5.. Sec. Appropriations Act of 1982 which states that "all appropriations provided herein for MAKING AUTHORITY OF THE SUPREME COURT . 35 2. namely." (par. Sandiganbayan to submit an annual report directly to the President without coursing the same to the Supreme Court for review' and approval. Constitution). Moir. Ericta. 1970. Circuit Criminal Courts. Sp. X of the New 1982 expressly provides that the disposition of all the appropriations for the Court of Constitution). NO. 5 of Art. Section—1 of P. X. Oct. 1606 vesting the Sandiganbayan with the power SCRA 481.D.D. 1972 collides with the constitutional rule-making authority of the Supreme Court. Section 15 acknowledges such to select and appoint its personnel including a clerk of court and three deputy clerks separability although under the jurisprudence it is merely a guide for and of court and to remove them for cause without reserving to the Supreme Court the persuasive. . 3). and the Court of Agrarian Relations is expressly subject to the approval of the Chief Justice of the Supreme IV Court (pp. Provisions XXV on the Judiciary. 44. No.D. Section 12 of P. P. 1606 authorizing the Sandiganbayan to promulgate its own particular provision impairs likewise the constitutional power of administrative rules of procedure without requiring the approval thereof by the Supreme Court. the Supreme Court which can declare an authority to approve or disapprove such appointments and to review such removals. No. 539-541. 25 Phil. 1606 CLASHES WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL RULE. what is to be done. p." without and 13 are separable from the rest of its provisions without affecting the requiring the approval of the Supreme Court also contravenes the constitutional completeness thereof. The Supreme Court can review all judgments of the People's Court both Court to supervise inferior courts.D. General Appropriations Act of 1982).D. the All the challenged provisions of P. Section 13 of P. This Section 9 of P. to adopt such rules governing the constitution of its divisions. . 12 allocation of cases among them and other matters relating to its business. because said Section 13 requires the on questions of fact and of law. Sections 7 (par. Section 10 of P.. 1606 also contravenes the constitutional power of the Supreme certiorari. 9. and can therefore be declared unconstitutional without power of supervision over the Sandiganbayan as an inferior trial court. the Sandiganbayan shall be administered solely by the Presiding Justice. 1606 authorizing the Sandiganbayan to "administer its own internal affairs. No. 538. As a matter of fact. Art. 496-497). Likewise.the test for a complete and intelligible law (Barrameda vs.D.D. 6. It should be emphasized that the same General Appropriations Act of promulgate rules of court for all courts of the land (par. No. Court over inferior courts. 1606 can be considered valid by just considering as not written therein the phrase "of the same level as the Court of Appeals. Appeals.D.

practice and procedure in all courts. however. Constitutionally speaking. try and decide crimes already such a provision was conceived to guarantee the Sandigan's independence. as amended. We must bear in mind that the Sandiganbayan's primary and I regret. I am aware that my expeditiously in order to curtail any fast surging tide of evil-doing against the social objection to the provision in question is not ground enough to render the same order. 1606 has I am of the considered opinion. it is not under the Article on the Judiciary (Article X) but of 1984. Section 17 and 29 of the Judiciary Act Assembly "shall create". and I fully agree with the view that P. I am more inclined to agree with our honored and distinguished public officers more than it used to be. the Constitution ordains it to be "a special court. it is committed is not a constitutional abnormality. as a court it exercises judicial Sandiganbayan are deemed subject to the approval of the Supreme Court. it is obviously improper to make give the Supreme Court its deserved superior status over the Sandiganbayan. I must say emphatically that if creation of a special court to take cognizance of. as if they have originated therefrom. 1606 advanced by its always concerned with the future of the country were caused by their conviction that critics lack sufficient persuavity. 1606 Supreme Court insofar as the matter of automatic releases of appropriations is does not infringe the constitutional injunction against ex-post facto laws. I have read with great care the concurring and dissenting opinion of our learned colleague. 1606 can be declared unconstitutional without judicial structure designed by the makers of the 1971 Constitution. 1606. "special" as it may be.Section 5 of P.D. To be particularly affecting the completeness and validity of the remaining provisions of P. whose learning in constitutional law is duly respected here and restlessness in the later '60's and the early '70's particularly of the youth who are abroad. Section 5(5) of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning BARREDO. The concerned.D. I cannot agree with the constitutional structures expressed by primordial reason for being is to insure the people's faith and confidence in our Justice Makasiar. No. appeals therefrom appealable to another collegiate court with the same number of judges composing it. 1606 could likewise be validated by simply appointing three It should not be surprising nor unusual that the composition of and procedure in the more members of the Sandiganbayan to complete its membership. which definitely should not be the case.D.. the challenged provisions. Mr. Strong as my feeling in this respect is. under the article on Accountability of Public Officers. such "special" character endowed to the However." To my mind. And in this respect. and the Sandiganbayan is one of those courts. noted must be the fact that the mandate of the Constitution that the National because in the absence of said Paragraph 3. 10. it must be subordinate to the Supreme Court. and so under Section 1 of Article X. No. graft and corruption was already intolerably pervasive in the government and .can apply. No. concuring: pleading. I am just adding my little voice of protest in order that hopefully those concerned may hear it loud and clear and thus Since the Sandiganbayan is a collegiate trial court. I view the Sandiganbayan as sui generis in the Paragraph 3 of Section 7 of P. nonetheless. 12 and 13 could Sandiganbayan carries with it certain concomittants which compel that it should be remain valid provided it is understood that the powers delegated thereunder to the treated differently from the ordinary courts. Sandiganbayan should be designed and allowed to be different from the ordinary courts. I agree with Justice Makasiar that the rule-making power granted to it by P. 1606 must of constitutional necessity be understood as signifying that any rule it may promulgate cannot have force and effect unless Separate Opinions approved by the Supreme Court. J.D. Otherwise. that the arguments against the constitutionality of P. Of course. that the special composition of the unduly and improperly placed the Sandiganbayan on a higher plane than the Sandiganbayan and the special procedure of appeal provided for it in P.D. In expressing myself as I do.D. We have only to recall that the activism and Chief Justice.D. especially Sections 9. unconstitutional. Justice Makasiar. More. there would be chaos in certainly unwise to assume that the Supreme Court's independence is unworthy of the prosecution of offenses which in the public interest must be dealt with more similar protection. power.

No. it seen and observed the witnesses as provided for in P. I separable from the valid provisions. and no one has yet been heard to say the contrary. If that was It should likewise be emphasized that in the opinion of the Writer. and the rule-making power of the Supreme Court is not insulated by the review of the decisions of the Sandiganbayan. pronouncement. it has only the records to rely on. That the Supreme Court may review the decisions of the Sandiganbayan only on questions of law does All the relevant cases on due process. like the People's Court of Collaboration times. 1606 which he does not impugn.D. hence. a rule of court guarantee that no person accused before such special court will ever be finally originated by the legislative power. and the majority point of view was beyond reasonable doubt. equal protection of the law and ex post not. Thus. With more reason should this rule apply to the review of necessary counterpart. when the Court of Appeals passes on an appeal in a criminal cases. the decision of a collegiate trial court. whose three justices have actually Charter against legislature's attribute of alteration. the Tanodbayan or Ombudsman was conceived and as its been overlooked by them. the provisions of proper and legal. the Constitution mandates that the guilt of the accused must of supervision of the Supreme Court over inferior courts as well as its rule-making be proved beyond reasonable doubt. as long as the evidence relied upon by opinion. If a new or special court can be MAKASIAR. I must emphasize that P. the constitutional requirement is complied with.D.D. except in cases where pivotal points are shown to have remedies. why should P. Indeed. J. 1606 is a more iron-clad is the Supreme Court that cannot modify or amend. It should be noted that petitioner does not challenge the constitutionality of P. much less repeal. the Solicitor General. At this point. which are under P. I cannot see how the new procedure of appeal from such courts Some provisions in the Sandiganbayan violate not only the constitutional can be faulted as violative of the Charter. in my opinion. and yet the It must be against the backdrop of recent historical events that I feel We must view Supreme Court has no power to reverse its findings of fact.naturally they demanded and expected effective and faster and more expeditious evidence by the trial judges. Moreover. It is Our beginning any attempt to assault his constitutional liberties. guarantees of due process as wen as equal protection of the law and against the enactment of ex post facto laws. concurring and dissenting: legitimately created to try offenses already committed. the method of appeal provided by P. constant jurisprudence that the appellate courts should rely on the evaluation of the . the Supreme Court's power of review 1606 on the ground that it impairs the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court over decisions of the former even in criminal cases has been limited statutorily or by and its power of supervision over inferior courts. But once the Sandiganbayan makes such a authority. convicted without his guilt appearing beyond reasonable doubt as mandated by the Constitution. Since the creation of the Court of Appeals.D.D. the Sandiganbayan in arriving at such conclusion is substantial.resist from the very actually seeing and observing the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses. 1606 from decisions of the Sandiganbayan cannot be unconstitutional. believe that the accused has a better guarantee of a real and full consideration of the evidence and the determination of the facts where there are three judges The basic caveat for the embattled citizen is obsta principiis .D. but also the constitutional provisions on the power True. with only the usual the Sandiganbayan. 1606? With all due respect to the observation of Justice Makasiar. We have never been supposed to exercise the power to reweigh the evidence but only to determine its substantiality. No. have been cited by the petitioner. Accordingly. alter the fact that the conviction of the accused from the factual facto laws.. the Sandiganbayan. the rules only to legal questions. remain valid and complete as a statute We wonder about the method of review of the decisions of the Sandiganbayan and therefore can be given effect minus the challenged portions. there is no need to repeat them here. in criminal cases. I strongly believe that the measure. amendment or repeal. 1606 is a legislative exceptions already known to all lawyers and judges.

first. 1606. because the right to appeal to the Court of constitutional power to determine whether the guilt of the accused has been Appeals and thereafter to the Supreme Court was already secured under Sections established by proof beyond reasonable doubt . No. Then again. SECTION 7 OF P. 555. 1 SCRA 478 [1961]. which can appraise the evidence and Three judges sitting on the same case does not ensure a quality of justice better the law with greater objectivity. which It should be stressed that the Constitution merely authorizes the law-making presumption can only be overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt (See. Constitution. .and therefore subverts the constitutional presumption of amended. and not questions of fact nor Supreme Court. there is Sec. including defendants accused of only light felonies. Cruz. Section 7 of P.to the Supreme Court (par. 46 SCRA 717. 1606 trenches upon the due before the Sandiganbayan. detachment and impartiality unaffected as they are than that meted out by a trial court presided by one judge. This is also reiterated in Our discussion hereunder concerning the violation of the constitutional prohibition PARAGRAPH 3. Sierra. I Fernando. 7. the Supreme Court is thereby deprived of the process clause of the Constitution. likewise limits the reviewing power of the Supreme Court only to to appeal to two appellate courts . Limiting the power of review by the Supreme Court of convictions by the the accused and to the people. Casiano. 1606 DENIES PETITIONER DUE against the passage of ex post facto laws. paragraph 3 of Section 7 of P.by proof generating moral certainty 17 and 29 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. under the Decree creating not as serious as graft and corruption. authority to create the Sandiganbayan with a specific limited jurisdiction only over IV.D. the Supreme Court. Moreno.D. NO. first by the Court of Appeals. Persons who are charged with estafa or malversation of funds not belonging to decisions of the Sandiganbayan can only be reviewed by the Supreme Court the government or any of its instrumentalities or agencies are guaranteed the right through certiorari.D. People vs. than graft and corruption. 19. The Bill of Sandiganbayan is supported by the substantial evidence. Because the Supreme Court under P. 296.. 1606 is precluded from reviewing questions of fact and the evidence submitted It is also clear that paragraph 3.D. can inquire into whether the judgment of the accused convicted by the Sandiganbayan to only the Supreme Court. which are less serious against him. 1974 ed. 104 [1939]. 2. People vs. 674-675). graft and corruption committed by officers and employees of the government. 1606). industry and integrity of the trial judge. 96. are only allowed one appeal . People vs. and thereafter to the question of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. and therefore also already part of procedural due process to which the innocence in his favor which is enjoyed by all other defendants in other criminal petitioner was entitled at the time of the alleged commission of the crime charged cases. 3. Art. No. equated with substantial evidence. pp. 548. government instrumentalities and government-owned and -controlled corporations. The fact that the Sandiganbayan is a collegiate trial court greater guarantee of justice in criminal cases when the trial court's judgment is does not generate any substantial distinction to validate this invidious discrimination subject to review by two appellate tribunals. factors are the intellectual competence. otherwise known as R. 77 Phil. all questions of fact and of law are reviewed. likewise violates the constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused.A. To repeat. because proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be pursuant to the constitutional directive. by providing that the 1. Sandiganbayan only to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. P. In other criminal cases involving offenses as graft and corruption committed by public officers. No. as as to his culpability -. But a review by two appellate tribunals of the same case certainly ensures better justice to 3. and then by the Supreme Court. who. PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. the Sandiganbayan. to determine whether the trial The Constitution does not authorize the lawmaker to limit the right of appeal of the court gravely abused its discretion. No. to the Court of Appeals. (Marcos vs. 68 Phil. The ultimate decisive by views and prejudices that may be engendered during the trial.D. the presumption of Rights remains as restrictions on the lawmaker in creating the Sandiganbayan innocence is still violated. No. Phil. Even if in certiorari proceedings. 1973 Constitution). Estafa and malversation of private funds are on the same category findings or conclusions of the trial court.

24. being down-graded by Section 14 of P. 1606. Even the Supreme Court is not spared from such odious discrimination as it is associate Justices. 1977 up to and including January 12. No. and thereafter by the Supreme .D. because said Section 14 expressly shall be necessary for the pronouncement of the judgment. Section 1 of P. 1606 denies him the equal protection of the law as against those who will be prosecuted II when three more members of the Sandiganbayan will be appointed to complete its membership of nine. The Court of Appeals is an appellate tribunal exercising appellate jurisdiction over all cases . Consequently.D. Under the 1982 Appropriations division shall be necessary for rendering judgment. 1606 VIOLATES THE GUARANTEE AGAINST EX POST FACTO LAWS - P. civil cases. forming a division of five Justices. its instrumentalities and charter of the Sandiganbayan promulgated on June 11. Under Section 5 thereof.criminal cases. 3. Court of Appeals on all questions of fact and law. government-owned or -controlled corporations. Sometimes At present. No. sitting in three divisions of 3 Justices each (Sec. rec. No. when a member of the Division dissents. 1970. before the creation of the Sandiganbayan on December 10. instead of 6 members from whom to select the two other operations can be jeopardized and the administration of justice consequently Justices to compose a special division of five in case a member of the division obstructed or impeded by the delay or refusal on the part of the Budget Ministry to dissents." become entitled. Such operating. Section 5 of P. an accused for an acquittal.D. The fact that there are only Branch being constituted by the merger or union of the Executive and the Batasang 6 members now composing the Sandiganbayan limits the choice of the Presiding Pambansa . P. which effectively makes the 1606). The disparity between the Court of Appeals and estafa were entitled to a review of a trial court's judgment of conviction by the and the Sandiganbayan is too patent to require extended demonstration. the original public officers and employees of the government. because it deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has places expressly the Sandiganbayan on "the same level as the Court of Appeals. 1978" appellate court. the Presiding Justice shall designate released in accordance with the schedule submitted by the Sandiganbayan" two other Justices from among the members of the Court to sit temporarily with (emphasis supplied). there are only 6 members of the Sandiganbayan or two divisions actually compliance with such request is hampered by bureaucratic procedures. Furthermore.D. the unanimous vote of three Justices in a division Sandiganbayan superior to the Supreme Court. In the event that the provides that "the appropriation for the Sandiganbayan shall be automatically three Justices do not reach a unanimous vote. 1978. p. its jurisdiction is purely limited to criminal and civil cases involving (Annex A.D.D. As heretofore stated. 35 SCRA 429) that an ex post other defendants indicted before other trial courts. facto law is one which alters the rules of evidence and authorizes conviction upon less testimony than the law required at the time the crime was committed. No.the first Division to constitute a special division of five members.). 1486. long before the creation of the Sandiganbayan on December graft and corruption as well as violation of the prohibited drug law committed by 10. all persons accused of malversation of public funds or graft and corruption the trial courts or quasi-judicial bodies. NO. P. 1978 by P. 1606 therefore denies the accused advantages and privileges accorded to 1. special civil actions.D. 1606 which expressly repealed P.4. annual them. whose Justice to only three. No. There is no such provision in any law or in the. two other discrimination against the Supreme Court . and administrative cases appealable from 1978. WE ruled in Kay Villegas Kami (Oct. This situation patently diminishes to an appreciable degree the chances of release the needed funds for the operation of the courts. Applied to the petitioner. No. special proceedings. and the concurrence of the majority of such appropriations act in favor of the Supreme Court. the Sandiganbayan is composed of a presiding Justice and 8 6. or 5. the Sandiganbayan is a collegiate trial court and not an corruption committed "from July 20. No.the highest tribunal of the land and the members may be designated by the Presiding Justice to sit temporarily with the only other Branch of our modified parliamentary-presidential government .emphasizes the peril to the independence of the Judiciary. The indictment against herein petitioner accused him of graft and As heretofore stated.D. 22. the funds for the Supreme Court and the entire Judiciary can only be released by the Budget Ministry upon request therefor by the Supreme Court. Act. 1606 further displays such arbitrary classification.

Section 12 of P. Appeals. 2. This vital right of the accused has been taken away on December 10. NO. 1. p. because at the time the People's Court Act or authority to approve or disapprove such appointments and to review such removals. Appropriations Act of 1982). the No. 5 of Art. IV. Court of Tax Appeals.A. 1945. X. . Sec. 5. CA 682). requiring the approval of the Supreme Court also contravenes the constitutional power of supervision over the Sandiganbayan as an inferior trial court. was already Constitution). 1606 thus in effect reduces the quality and quantity of the evidence requisite for allocation of cases among them and other matters relating to its business.D." without a criminal conviction. thus placing herein petitioner under a great disadvantage for crimes he allegedly committed prior to 1978. No. review by certiorari impairs the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. 6.D. Sp.. 1945 by Executive Order No. particular provision impairs likewise the constitutional power of administrative supervision vested in the Supreme Court over all inferior courts (Sec." (par. No.D. 52. 1606 also contravenes the constitutional power of the Supreme revived only on October 4. disputed that the Sandiganbayan is an inferior court. 13. Circuit Criminal Courts. 682 was enacted on September 25. Likewise. Consequently. part of the constitutional right of due process enjoyed by the petitioner in 1977. Court over inferior courts. P. P. 1982 expressly provides that the disposition of all the appropriations for the Court of collides with the constitutional rule-making authority of the Supreme Court. It should be emphasized that the same General Appropriations Act of rules of procedure without requiring the approval thereof by the Supreme Court. X of the New of conviction by two appellate tribunals on both factual and legal issues.A.D. Art. 538. the Court of Appeals was no aggravates the violation of the constitutional power of supervision of the Supreme longer existing then as it was abolished on March 10.D. which requires proof beyond Section 10 of P. No.D. 1978 by P. 1606 SUBVERTS THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF SUPERVISION OVER INFERIOR COURTS INCLUDING THE SANDIGANBAYAN - 2. The Supreme Court can review all judgments of the People's Court both the same to the Supreme Court for review' and approval. the People's Court Act could not provide for appeal to the Court of Appeals which was 3. No.D. NO. which was not so prior to its promulgation. Art. It cannot be The conviction of petitioner is thus facilitated or made easier by P. No. 1606. 37 issued by President Sergio Osmena soon after the Liberation. No. 1973 Constitution). on questions of fact and of law.D. 1606 vesting the Sandiganbayan with the power The Sandiganbayan could not be likened to the People's Court exclusively trying to select and appoint its personnel including a clerk of court and three deputy clerks cases against national security whose decisions were appealable directly only to the of court and to remove them for cause without reserving to the Supreme Court the Supreme Court (Sec. C. 1972 Section 9 of P. IV 1606. This MAKING AUTHORITY OF THE SUPREME COURT . As a necessary consequence. 19. to adopt such rules governing the constitution of its divisions. That the Sandiganbayan is a specially favored court is further shown by the General III Appropriations Act of 1982 which states that "all appropriations provided herein for the Sandiganbayan shall be administered solely by the Presiding Justice. because said Section 13 requires the People's Court Act appeal to the Supreme Court is not limited to the review by Sandiganbayan to submit an annual report directly to the President without coursing certiorari. Gen.D. internal affairs. No. 1606 authorizing the Sandiganbayan to "administer its own reasonable doubt to rebut the presumption (Sec. Provisions XXV on the Judiciary. 1606 CLASHES WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL RULE. But even under Section 13 of the Court to supervise inferior courts.. Section 13 of P.Court also on both questions of fact and law. to pro. SECTION 9 OF P. and the Court of Agrarian . 1606 authorizing the Sandiganbayan to promulgate its own Constitution). This right to a review of the judgment promulgate rules of court for all courts of the land (par. 1946 by R.

Oct. 1606 can be considered valid by just considering as not 21 L-21064. 067. 1605. because in the absence of said Paragraph 3. par. 40 170 US 343 (1898). Memorandum of Petitioner. 23 Ibid. JJ. 9. 12 Phil. The valid provisions amply determine 10 Ibid. 33 82 Phil. Footnotes 1 Article XIII.141. Armovit. 42 152 US 377.Relations is expressly subject to the approval of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Fernandez. remain valid provided it is understood that the powers delegated thereunder to the 37 3 Dallas 386. 1606. 31 SCRA 413. the challenged provisions. . 31 In re: Kay Villegas Kami. January 31. 1970. 029.160. more members of the Sandiganbayan to complete its membership. especially Sections 9. Sandiganbayan are deemed subject to the approval of the Supreme Court. 43 Ibid. As a matter of fact. February 18. 18 L-40004. It is worthy of mention that the then Justice Paras was the sole member of the Court relying on the 1908 decision. 9 Ibid.167. No. All the challenged provisions of P. 1606. No. 1486 as amended by Presidential Decree No.153. 059. 539-541.D. 5 L-20387. and can therefore be declared unconstitutional without 8 Ibid. 30 Memorandum of Petitioner.161. Inc. 1606.171. J. No. Cf. concur. 298. 7-9. 44. Ericta. separability although under the jurisprudence it is merely a guide for and 13 Ibid. 435. or property without due process of law. 242. namely. 7-8. 36. Gomez. and 13 are separable from the rest of its provisions without affecting the 165. 77-78. No. 22 SCRA 424. 15 Attorney Raymundo A. Paragraph 3 of Section 7 of P. Teehankee and De Castro. 20 Ibid. what is to be done.D. 62 SCRA 275. Section 1 of the Constitution provides: "No person shag be deprived of life.142. 35 the laws. 055. Section 15 acknowledges such 12 Ibid. 36 Ibid.120. 74. the constitutional supervision of the Supreme Court.130.154. par. 78. October 22. 19 Ibid. Section 17 and 29 of the Judiciary Act 32 Ibid.. written therein the phrase "of the same level as the Court of Appeals. L-32485. 12 7 Petition.1970. but not necessarily binding on. 4. 28 83 Phil.D. as amended. Section 5 of the Constitution. January 31.175. liberty. 1970. 1379. 17 1976 Amendments. concurs and dissent Court (pp. 12 and 13 could 35 Ibid.D. the Supreme Court which can declare an 16 Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza was assisted by Assistant Solicitor General Reynato Puno and entire law unconstitutional if the challenged portions are inseparable from the valid Trial Attorney Patria Manalastas. However. 126. 5. 24 Ibid. par. Sections 7 (par.124-126. 279. 10. Sandiganbayan does not include the authority to exempt the Sandiganbayan from 3 Republic Act No. who is to do it. 22 Ibid. Section. 6 Ibid. No. 1. 3019 (1960). persuasive. 1606 could likewise be validated by simply appointing three 25 Memorandum of Petitioner. General Appropriations Act of 1982). nor shag any person be denied the equal protection of intelligible law (Barrameda vs. Section 5 of P.1 of P. 5. 12. 3. portions. Moir. both issued in 1978. 111. 20.157. Presidential Decree No. 3). 35 SCRA 429.168. 25 Phil. enumerating such criminal cases as 027. 496-497).. Section 4. The authority delegated expressly by the Constitution to the law-maker to create the 2 Presidential Decree No. 2. 435. 524. and now to do it . 1606 can be declared unconstitutional without 29 Ibid.163. 27 Ibid.D. 119.139. 56 (1937). No. 34 2 Phil. 1606. 26 65 Phil. 1968. 391. 251. " SCRA 481. 39 Ibid. 062. Edu vs. 10. 054. par.179 and 186.131. 41 Ibid. United States v. 434-435. 352.D. par. 431. cited by petitioner. 298-299. completeness thereof. necessarily nullifying the entire P.can apply. 4 Republic Act No. 38 Ibid 390-391.145. Sec. of 1984. 382. affecting the completeness and validity of the remaining provisions of P. 1975.the test for a complete and 11 Article IV.

(3) Regularly demanding from Abaño amounts totaling more than P100. 1981: People v. 1981. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN. 45 According to Article IV. People v. “RECOMMENDED ACTION: The initial report of the NBI points only to the anomalies allegedly Overall Ombudsman Jose G. dated April 1987.000. People v.R. which under he had hired.[1] Abaño allegedly invested P100. in their affidavits. Colayco. NBI Agent Duka recommended that further investigation notwithstanding that the check was not encashed. 1981.Remigio as the STL provincial cashier. 46 L-21325.000. a lawyer. Antonio Raro was appointed Assistant Provincial the preliminary investigation allegedly violated the right of the accused to due process of law. July 25. Antonio M. which petitioner later used to accuse Abaño of issuing a bouncing check of Antonio Raro be secured.00 in the STL operation in that Fernando Carrascoso and Rustico Manalo. Galang recommended that further investigation be conducted and that a copy of the following acts: “evaluation comment” be furnished the Ombudsman with the information “that further (1) Causing the employment of members of his family in the experimental STL project that was investigation (was) still being conducted on some aspects of the case. Thus. 1987. 717. July 15. 23. through Atty. Galang . 118. 10. L-54335. J. Felipe. EN BANC Duka yielded the following findings: [G. Abaño alleged that considered. 55 Ibid. with the following recommendation: Ombudsman as OSP-88-01263. People v. 1981. 1981. 102 SCRA 674. in violation of Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft Law. People v. Ruben YNARES-SANTIAGO. NBI-LED Officer-in-Charge Gerarda G. 1988.48275. Operations Manager of the STL in Camarines Norte. Cuison. May 29. Carpio endorsed on May 11. the STL. petitioner’s brother named Antonio.000. Oct. People v. no receipt was shown to prove petitioner’s having in fact received that sum operate the STL in the province of Camarines Norte. 1981. L. the PCSO. 103 SCRA 122: People v. Feb. 1971. a resident of Daet. June 29. 1989. Raro. Delmendo. People. 42 SCRA 59. be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. in violation of Section 3 (h) of the Anti-Graft Law. Director J. petitioner’s brother. 1989 the “evaluation comment” and the (2) Deciding on the dismissal of certain lottery employees and in bad faith driving Abaño “to sever NBI agent’s report to the Ombudsman. ELMEC in turn employed Luis (“Bing”) although Ruidera and Galeon. authorized Elmec Trading and Management Corporation (ELMEC) to P100. 1981. L-52016. the judgment of acquittal was handed down in the following cases: 50 Ibid. July 15. 1981. 1981. NBI Agent Duka submitted a Disposition Form stating that per the joint affidavit of Yolly under a “profit-sharing” agreement. L-31084. L-31403. Jan. and Raro signed “numerous vouchers. 279-280. Likewise HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. L-32886. People v. “personally and directly intervened in (c) The subject of dismissal of employees was not yet covered by the investigation. Rosalio Poblete and Francisco Villaluz. 49 291 US 97 (1934). Abaño added that petitioner was not only be conducted in coordination with LUCSO in Lucena City. L-36436. 1981.000. In 1988. Reynaldo E. was to be operated in certain areas of the brother and sister were not verified from the owners of ELMEC. Since the sworn statements of Ilagan and Cordez and those of STL in said province. Dec. People v. October 29. On July 30. Novales L-47400.”[5] Accordingly. of the 10 accused. Verges. RARO. Tabayoyong. Camarines Norte. confirmed that said amount was given to F. 1606. was the Corporate Secretary of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Remigio claimed that it was ELMEC that offered her the position of treasurer of the STL and Office (PCSO). May 13. Presidential Decree No. Abaño. 104 SCRA 379.: Galeon. In People v. who allegedly received 25% of the proceeds of province. the accused shall Orpilla. No. ELMEC terminated the employment of Abaño and the employees Department that was in charge of the experimental Small Town Lottery (STL). 18. People v. People. in his capacity as PCSO Corporate Secretary.[3] and docketed in the Office of the Conrado Vasquez a Memorandum dated March 15. Ruben Galeon. Section 19 insofar as pertinent: "In all criminal prosecutions. 24. Anggot. on July 1. Ilagan of the Special (b) With respect to the charge that petitioner demanded from Abaño the total amount of Projects Department. L-30621. People v. thus causing Abaño “damage and injury” in the amount of Manubay. the operation of said lottery to his financial benefit and advantage” by committing the With these findings. 19. On the other hand. 1988. 1988. Feb.300. L-41704. 1981. 108431. As such. the The issue in this special civil action of certiorari and prohibition is whether or not the Sandiganbayan lottery station manager. 31 SCRA 711. 14. petitioner was the Acting Manager of the Special Projects that on January 27. Marquez. Vera v. L-51363.[7] dishonest but displayed such dishonesty. Rosario Poblete and Francisco Villaluz. 422.1981. 418 (1950). 47 Ibid. L-32146. 23. vouchers and other pertinent papers using the name gravely abused its discretion in denying a motion to quash an information on the ground that Joel Remigio. three were acquitted. 53 Cf. vs. Tapao. NBI under his supervision. Ilagan. Duero. Pisaivo. 1981. L-31218. 2000] (a) On the charge of employment of relatives. Francisco. 1970. Corpus.00 daily On July 12. July 14. L-43548. 1981. People v. Dec. Oct.00 as his share in the The sworn statement of Teddy Aguirre and xerox copies of vouchers supported this. 51 87 Phil. the circumstances surrounding ELMEC’s employment of petitioner’s PCSO Resolution No.[6] from the management of lottery” which at that time was grossing about P250. Antonio P1. * * *. 1990. L-31694. People submitted a report stating that the investigation conducted by NBI Senior Agent Salvador A. in violation of Section 3 (d) of the Anti-Graft Law. Abaño charged that petitioner asked him to appoint OSCAR G. Mendoza. Hence. v. Per the joint affidavit of Yoly Malubay. 104 SCRA 724. there were certain aspects of the charge that should be In a complaint that he filed with the Tanodbayan in Manila on May 20. People v. 1989. 1981. June 29. “no definite conclusion could be made” thereon. People v. However. Utrela.00. Marissa Raro- Petitioner Oscar G.[2] The complaint filed by Abaño’s counsel was Ombudsman Graft Investigation Officer II (GIO II) Theresa Medialdea-Caraos submitted to Ombudsman verified and subscribed before a notary public. 52 Ibid. country. as Provincial Manager of the experimental petitioner and to Atty. petitioner. L-38l0l-02. 14. endorsed the complaint to the National Bureau committed by the respondent’s brother. " Rosales. L-43789. 14.44 Section 5. Camarines Norte. Neither could the sworn statement cash. according to Abaño. signed payrolls. 122. (Second Division). 1981. the original copies of the vouchers could not be secured on account of the cessation of Abaño maintained further that petitioner got mad at him when he gave petitioner a check instead of operation of the STL in Camarines Norte since July 1988. Dec.[4] On May 11. 1981. THE his (petitioner’s) brother as station manager of the lottery in Labo. Marissa DECISION Raro. Marissa’s husband. 48 To speak of 1981 decisions alone. Perez v. 23. 23.000. The appointment of his sister which was of Investigation (NBI). Feb. 54 218 US 272. Nov. 14.00. respondents. payrolls and other papers” in the name of Joel Remigio. 1981. L-38172. Antonio. 64. However. L-36234. 102 SCRA 86: People v. Dec. Oct. petitioner. had not yet been taken. petitioner imposed on him the appointment of petitioner’s sister. experimental lottery.

it is not required that all reasonable “CONTRARY TO LAW. Philippines. 1990. 1987 to January 1988.00 from the proceeds of the STL operation.[11] of the Special Projects Department of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO).00 on four different veracity of the charges. The only source of Resolution of GIO II Caraos. were the bare assertions of Abaño who was not a credible witness.” occasions. on May 14. 1992 or even before the resolution that gave rise to it was “Wherefore. Petitioner filed his counter-affidavit on October 25. the above named affidavit. 1988 of Rene Ruidera and Ben Galeon. He also denied demanding or receiving any such.”[10] On petitioner’s motion. wilfully. Camarines Norte. 1991. de la Llana and violation of Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No.. Quezon City. respondent Raro.” While no evidence Director Cesar T. 1992. matters of defense which can be best ventilated in court during trial. The resolution of June 11.[16] mere hearsay witnesses. Luis “Bing” F. petitioner sought another extension within which to file his accused. of law and to speedy disposition of the case because while the complaint was filed on May “Furthermore. petitioner should only be charged with violation of Section 3 (b) of R. as between the positive assertions of complainant Abano and the mere denials of of Cabanatuan City.799. the Sandiganbayan issued an order for petitioner’s arrest and fixed bail in the amount sufficient to establish probable cause that the accused committed the offense charged. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 1992 was a “picture of legal and factual infirmities. as well as the controverting evidence presented by the respondent. recommended its disapproval and the dismissal of the complaint. complaint. “SO RESOLVED. after reviewing the (factum probandum) requiring further evidentiary facts (factum probans). He denied that he hired Experimental Project of the PCSO in certain areas including Camarines Norte.” Moreover. 1988. Philippine malign him. GIO II Caraos issued a Resolution stating that: Camarines Norte.[22] On July 8. it must be stressed that in a preliminary investigation. supposedly imposed on the complainant is not supported by evidence other than the mere discuss the evidence that would support the particular charges recommended to be filed” allegation of the latter. Branch 26. taking or caused to be hired his brother and sister in the “experimental lottery research” as they advantage of his said public position and while in the performance of his official duties as maintained their affairs without his interference. suffice to establish a prima facie case” against herein petitioner. hastiness attended the proceedings in that he was not allegations of respondents which are mere insinuations as to the motive of the complainant in furnished a copy of the resolution on which the information was based. petitioner applied for bail before the Regional Trial Court Moreover. the other 2. the former deserves more credence as it is acknowledged that the same has 1992. 1991 within which to file his counter. 1990 by Ombudsman Vasquez.[24] respondent as responsible for various acts relative to the operation of the lottery in Violation Petitioner subsequently filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion for the reinvestigation of the Resolution of of the Anti-Graft law specifically Sec. In fact. from Mr.[9] Thus. in Daet. Such finding is duly supported the Ombudsman dated 11 June 1992. Probable cause has been established by the clear order of arrest. 3019. 3019. 1991. on information were “worthless pieces of documents.[8] SPO I Barreras-Sulit’s Memorandum was approved by Deputy Special Prosecutor Jose De G. the “That on or about the period from October. 1991. After analyzing each of the charges. therefore.” doubts on the accused’s guilt must be removed. 1991. a public officer being then the Corporate Secretary and Acting Department Manager counter-affidavit. Malate.[19] accusing petitioner with violation of Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 1988. as his share in the net proceeds of the said STL which was not authorized “Evaluating the complaint. Moreover. what is required only is that evidence be On July 6.[21] which forthwith approved the application. these bases for the reviewed the Resolution. 1992 prepared by SPO I Barreras-Sulit was filed with the counter-affidavit and controverting evidence to the complaint of May 6.[20] On the same day. On September 7. Despite the delay in filing the information. (b). the respondent. 1991. the filing the case. information was dated May 19. SPO I Barreras-Sulit concluded that The misdeeds committed by respondent were not based on facts as presented by NBI. he was not furnished a copy of the ground that the NBI report was “based merely on testimonial evidence” that “would not the NBI report showing that he received P116. supported the complaint other than the reports of NBI Agents Duka and Lasala and the [15] However. Jr. 3019 as there was It is therefore recommended that further investigation by NBI be conducted in order to determine the prima facie case that petitioner received the total amount of P116. of P12. Provincial Manager of the STL operations in On November 29. Desierto and Ombudsman Vasquez. (c). all legal premises considered. and monitoring arm of the PCSO in the Small Town Lottery operation in Camarines Norte. oral evidence should support the charge of extortion and that petitioner’s witnesses had 4. the Sandiganbayan recalled its order of arrest the following and positive testimonies of the complainant and his witnesses pointing to the herein day. petitioner filed with the Sandiganbayan a manifestation and motion for the lifting of the greater evidentiary value than the latter.[23] Accordingly. Attached to the Memorandum was the information charging petitioner with The Memorandum was recommended for approval by Acting Director Gualberto J. the information against him was filed more than four (4) years later. He averred that more than and the NBI never conducted a reinvestigation as required by NBI Director Carpio. Palana recommended approval of the above Resolution on December 5. The “prejudicial and indecent delay in the preliminary investigation” violated his rights to due process criminal charge against the respondent. Barreras-Sulit. on July 2. There was a need for a reinvestigation to protect him from hasty. Metro Manila. On September 19.000. 3 (a). 1992. 1992. The allegations in the complaint were facts to be established On June 11. malicious and oppressive prosecution. 1992. Assistant Ombudsman Abelardo L.[12] He asserted that he removed some San Marcelino.000. 3019 that his failure “to do so shall be construed as a waiver of his right to be heard and the committed as follows: preliminary investigation shall proceed accordingly. did then and there. He .”[14] 3. who affidavits dated June 30.A. on January 27. Abaño. “At the outset. unlawfully and criminally demand and receive on four amount from Abaño or from the lottery operator as it was impossible for him to demand bribe different occasions the amount totalling to ONE HUNDRED SIXTEEN THOUSAND SEVEN money in the form of a check. 1992.99).[18] Hence.[25] alleging that: by the recommendation of the NBI report which also recommended the filing of proper 1.[13] Currency. let an information be filed before the proper court against finished on June 11. The complaint was based solely on the affidavit of Abaño and those of Ruidera and Galeon who were amply clarified the charge of nepotism. Manila and Ombudsman granted him until September 7. the NBI recommended the prosecution of petitioner based on Abaño’s Special Prosecutor Aniano A. issued a Memorandum finding that said Resolution “did not fully the charges. against petitioner.000. with a warning Sandiganbayan. we find under the law but which amount was given to and received by him in his capacity as overseer prima facie case against herein respondent for Violation of R. only deserve scant consideration. He claimed that Abaño’s complaint was a desperate effort to HUNDRED NINETY NINE PESOS and NINETY NINE CENTAVOS (P116.A. most of the allegations of the respondents as contained in his counter-affidavit are 20.00. (h) and (k). GIO II Caraos formally directed petitioner to file his an information dated May 19.[17] approved on March 22. Special Prosecution Officer I (SPO I) Wendell E. Ferrer. Aportadera. tasked to monitor and oversee the Small Town Lottery employees from the lottery to avoid undue injury to the government.

“We have gone over the grounds and arguments alleged in accused’s aforesaid motion and We do not On August 14. petitioner sought the reconsideration of . operation “upon the prodding of PCSO through Atty.A. is that factum probans is required during a preliminary investigation and that Abaño is not a dated May 19. the information. The Sandiganbayan reset the arraignment for October 12. and the OSP’s preparation of the Order of August 14. supra. We find nothing irregular with respect and anxiety as well as the stigma resulting from an open and public accusation of a crime. of the Sandiganbayan. Abalo (sic) on the trial of the case on the merits. 1992. Reiterating his arguments resolution of June 11. and reset the arraignment for October 2. Caraos conducted a preliminary investigation. thus. was the “best evidence of 8:30 a.R.” The newly-discovered evidence. 1992 was cancelled considering that the reinvestigation based on errors or irregularities during the preliminary investigation or on reinvestigation ordered by the Sandiganbayan had “not yet been terminated. SPO III Berbano issued an Order stating that the grounds and issues raised in subscribe to the claim that there was prejudicial and indecent delay in the preliminary petitioner’s motion for reinvestigation were “clearly matters of defense to be ventilated during investigation. “simply signify that there exists a prima facie case or probable cause” against (h) and (k) of Republic Act No. Raro” and he received commissions and After hearing.799. all of which had no “The Caraos’ (sic) resolution was reviewed by proper officials in the Office of the Ombudsman. and the information receipt of the resolution finding a prima facie case against him within which to file a motion for filed with the Sandiganbayan withdrawn. 1988 of Rene Ruidera and Ben Galeon. 1992. upon a finding that the November 21. and and the prosecution to conduct such reinvestigation and to terminate it on or before August (6) The findings of Senator Maceda of the Senate Committee on Games and Amusement that the 31. He contended that the OSP might not have been aware of “On the other hand. Vasquez on June 25. on August 18. issued by the Ombudsman on October 15. Under consideration the strength of the evidence of the accused and the inherent baselessness of Administrative Order No. Barreras-Sulit. 1992. petitioner contended that he should be spared from the trouble. and reset the arraignment to September 8. 1992. 1992 recommending the amended Rule II. Ombudsman. Conrado M. hence. petitioner also filed with the Tanodbayan a “Motion for a Last Review” of the Special despite delay. the Sandiganbayan granted the petitioner’s motion for reinvestigation in a Resolution percentages as late as March 1988 as shown by vouchers signed by Marissa Raro-Remigio. expense and filed with this Court on July 2.[29] Investigator II Theresa M. Barreras-Sulit.[28] On September 24. of mismanagement.[34] Later. considering that the initial complaint filed by complainant Luis F. Reynaldo a warrant for his arrest was issued. P51. despite the contention of the accused that there was “hastiness Subsequently. 1991 Resolution of GIO II Caraos and III) Roger Berbano. The Sandiganbayan’s directives were based on the following findings: corruption” perpetrated by petitioner. Abaño circulated “fabrications and fairy tale” against him even before the (4) He was not a dismissed employee of ELMEC because he financed and managed the STL Sandiganbayan. 1992.000.” Moreover. the motions he filed for extension of time within which to file the motion for reconsideration. because petitioner had him audited for “unexplained (3) The “bribe money” was good to the “exact centavo” because it was 25% of the daily gross disposition” of STL funds during Abaño’s campaign for mayor of Daet.00 but his claim that it bounced was not true because the check with Atty. upon motion of the prosecution. both of which bore the imprimatur of the (1) Petitioner was not able to refute the charges against him of violation of Section 3 (a). he reiterated that the issues raised were evidentiary in nature and should demanded and got from me. 1992. 1990) and Gonzales (199 SCRA 298). as prepared by Atty. 1990.” Hence. 1991. recommending the filing of the proper Barreras-Sulit based her Resolution on the NBI Report of September 18. was “consumed by vengeance”. to wit. SPO III Berbano denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and the motion On August 12.00 he petitioner.[31] reconsideration. the doctrines enunciated in Tatad (159 SCRA 70) are not entirely on Prosecutor’s Order of August 14. Sr. 1992. 1992. 1992 before it received the motion for he was not able to refute the allegations contained therein and (2) (sic) that he was not reconsideration constituted a gross procedural defect. However. he recommended the denial of the motion for May 20. Petitioner further asserted that “the furnished a copy of the resolution upon which the information was based before the filing minimum requirement for a meaningful determination of ‘probable cause’ should take into thereof. who adopted them by Abaño. Thereafter. 3019 in her because the findings therein needed further investigation. Likewise. 1992.m. Graft Vasquez. (OSP) failed to take into consideration the very motion for reconsideration that should have Nos. 918223-35. the complaint dismissed. 1992 at and hence. complainant Abaño wrote a letter addressed to Special Prosecution Officer III (SPO for a last review. on August 26.” He thus prayed that the Resolution of June 11. to bring the proper medical certificate showing that petitioner was ill. promulgated June 7. According to petitioner. having been modified in Lecaroz (G. wherein accused In the meantime. (b). to get back at earnings of the lottery.[33] (2) Petitioner admitted in a press conference the existence of a check in the amount of Petitioner did not appear at his arraignment on October 2. 1992. its discontinuance upon the order of the President.[32] reinvestigation. which recommendation was approved by the Ombudsman. On this score. affidavits dated June 30. he stayed as the general manager of ELMEC until March 1988. Hence. the report of the latter agency was only submitted on September 18. the latest evidentiary value because they are hearsay and basically based on information furnished of which was made by Special Prosecution Officer I Wendell E. Section 7 of Rep. culminating in the reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s Resolution of June 11. He asserted that SPO I issuance of a resolution dated November 29. the Sandiganbayan required the prosecution to furnish petitioner a copy operation of the STL was the source of corruption and “milking cow of corrupt PCSO officials” of the NBI Report of September 18. Hence. been the subject of that Order. 1992 credible witness. 1992. petitioner. a respondent has five (5) days from filing of an information against him be reversed. which the complainant’s.[27] which was granted on August 13. 1988 had been referred to the National Bureau of Investigation on July 1. that he was not furnished a copy of the NBI report during the preliminary investigation. However. 1992 and approved by Ombudsman Conrado M. Hence. under Section 7 of Rule II. 1992. Act No. 1988 and reinvestigation. 1992. Likewise. 3019 “except to discredit the truth about the P116. 1990. 1992. 1990 and the information with this Court. 1992. 09. petitioner’s counsel arrived late and undertook Ilagan as payee was in his (Abaño’s) possession. the said Report was incomplete and inconclusive the recommendation for the filing only of a charge under Section 3(b) of R. he was deprived of his right to file a motion for reconsideration. (c). He alleged that the Office of the Special Prosecutor all fours with the situation depicted in the case at bar. 1991. 6770 (sic). and ordered the defense to file a motion for reconsideration and/or (5) His candidacy for mayor in the January 18. he may move for a The scheduled arraignment of petitioner on September 8.[30] to the afore-cited dates. alleging that: the Memorandum of SPO I Barreras-Sulit. 1988 elections was never affected by allegations reinvestigation with the Office of the Ombudsman within ten (10) days from July 29. dated July 28. petitioner filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a motion for the submitted his counter-affidavit denying the charges levelled against him.”[26] Sandiganbayan granted SPO III Berbano a twenty-day extension within which to resolve the Petitioner filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion for extension of time to file his motion for motion for reconsideration. 1992.” be resolved by the Sandiganbayan. there appears to be some semblance of validity to accused’s other grounds.

[48] . While the Resolution recommending the filing of an information was issued on June 11. Abaño publicized such reports in Camarines Norte in clear violation The prosecution did not file a comment or opposition to the motion for reconsideration. Meanwhile. 1993. Neither was the speculations.D. fraternity brothers who would cover up petitioner’s corrupt preliminary investigation conducted was “sham and attended by irregularities amounting to and foul deeds. this Court gave due course quash. Abaño had sent him a letter with the admonition that Berbano Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was filed on December 8.[36] trial of the case. Atty.” Berbano denied that he was ever pressured into denying petitioner’s motion for he entered a plea of not guilty to the crime charged. 1992 “that there was no indecent during the preliminary investigation.[46] On September 21.P. setting petitioner’s arraignment on January 11. 1992 thereby showing that November 23. Berbano averred that petitioner’s ground for the motion to respondents filed their comment and petitioner his reply thereto.[45] Petitioner’s arraignment proceeded on February 19. 1993. the arrest. No.[41] the prosecutors were “hell-bent and determined. the situation was akin to “birth preced(ing) probable cause that caused it to file” the information. 1993. 3019. including the Court denied the prayer for temporary restraining order and required respondents to Ombudsman. to proceed” with their determination to prosecute him. petitioner filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion to quash the information. 1992. i. That procedure also made a he was filing a motion for the reconsideration of the Resolution denying his motion to mockery of the Sandiganbayan’s Resolution of July 28. SPO III Berbano confided to his counsel.e. 1992. Berbano was pressured by said letter as indicated by his denial on August violation of the very purpose for which preliminary investigation was instituted in our statute 14. Citing Brocka v.[37] on the ground The Sandiganbayan[40] denied the motion to quash for lack of merit. thereon. petitioner was deemed to have admitted the allegations in the information and hence.” Berbano in fact admitted to preliminary investigation is only for the purpose of determining the existence of just and Roxas that he was being pressured to deny petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.” It found information was already prepared on May 19. reason or no Petitioner’s counsel once again moved for the resetting of the scheduled arraignment on the ground that reason.” He emphasized that SPO III Berbano was indeed pressured into denying his motions Berbano was aspiring for the Bench and it was not a “far-flung conclusion” that a favorable because of his application for judgeship. the Order for his arrest on the ground that he was then suffering from viral influenza and jurisdiction over the offense charged or over the person of the accused. Abaño never applied for immunity from prosecution because his Salonga. 1992. Tomas Z. The Sandiganbayan gave him fifteen (15) days within which to file the motion for conduct a reinvestigation of the case.. Moreover. Furthermore. Thus. Berbano being the UP fraternity brother of the accused. 1992 or four (4) during trial on the merits. petitioner averred that it is infinitely more important than conventional adherence to “testimony” was uncorroborated on material points. 1992. and directed that the arraignment should proceed on October 12. [44] conduct a reinvestigation of the case and the hearsay nature of the affidavits of Ruidera and Galeon. Roxas “is himself a Fraternity Brod of the Alpha Phi Beta Fraternity comment on the petition. reconsideration and the prosecution ten (10) days from receipt of said motion within which to 3. and that the objections raised by pregnancy. SPO III Berbano denied the motion for reconsideration in his Order of August 14. On February 4. 1992 thereby showing that said Resolution was “no compelling justification to disturb the findings made by the prosecution of the existence of no more than a formality. the Sandiganbayan found no reason to depart from its earlier conclusion that complaint ever sworn to before them. 1993. The Sandiganbayan stressed that its indicia of the “falsity and hastiness” of the proceedings before the Ombudsman: authority to determine probable cause “is limited only for the purpose of issuing a warrant of 1. [47] the result of a highly anomalous preliminary investigation. and not for the purpose of justifying the filing or non-filing of the Information.. the arraignment was reset to January 11. the Philippines from proceeding with Criminal Case No. 1992. both of which were approved by his superiors.[42] Jr. Because the crime charged was for violation of Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 1992. books.” After all. comment. of P. the Sandiganbayan suspended proceedings in Criminal Case No. He argued that the determination of probable cause by delay in the manner by which the preliminary investigation was held. the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying said motion for lack of merit and confidential to protect the reputation of the official involved. there was “only one way clear under the circumstances. While Atty. Abaño was regularly furnished with arbitrary arrest and punishment but also from unwarranted and vexatious prosecution. 1993. the Sandiganbayan set petitioner’s arraignment on days before he filed the motion for reconsideration on August 18. the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition with application for the issuance of a temporary On November 19. He reiterated therein that the should not be like petitioner’s U. while petitioner was deprived general rules of criminal procedure to respect the citizen’s right to be free not only from information on what was happening with the case. Abaño should Paño[43] wherein this Court reviewed the prosecution’s findings of a prima facie case against be charged as the briber. Enrile[38] where this Court held that a sham and hastily conducted Neither was there clear and convincing proof that SPO III Berbano succumbed to pressure preliminary investigation may be lawfully enjoined. after reconsideration. closed and terminated. 1992 directing the Ombudsman to quash. Brushing aside said allegations as mere officers at the Offices of the Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor. where of UP. that the Sandiganbayan never acquired jurisdiction over an information that was to the instant petition and required the parties to file their respective memoranda. arguing that all the restraining order to enjoin respondents Sandiganbayan. 1992. that on August 14. 17800 on 3 (b) of Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure requiring the court to have account of the pendency of the instant petition. By filing a motion to submitted a medical certificate to that effect.” accused-movant on this point involve matters which could be best passed upon by this Court 2.” Relying on the ruling in Salonga v. It found “no persuasive reason to that the court did not acquire jurisdiction in view of violations of accused’s constitutional rights depart from its earlier holding” in the Resolution of July 28. For petitioner. the Ombudsman and the People of pleadings filed by petitioner were duly considered. At the hearing on September 8. may only be “inferred” from Section Meanwhile. progress reports thereon. Cruz 4. petitioner pointed out the following as and considered petitioner’s pleadings with partiality. SPO III Berbano filed an opposition to the motion to quash. as shown by the Orders of August 14. Hence. 17800.” It ruled that the long the prosecuting officer does not preclude the courts from demanding further proof period of time that the preliminary investigation took was not meant to persecute petitioner. He claimed that the Sandiganbayan erred when it consideration of said motion for reconsideration “may prompt Abaño to accuse him of ruled that the “court’s power to examine the conclusions drawn by the prosecutor after the partiality.[39] On that date. proper cause to issue a warrant of arrest. He argued once again on the failure of the NBI to there was no compelling justification to disturb the prosecution’s finding of a probable cause. The Sandiganbayan held that Petitioner alleged further that there was a “jurally and constitutionally defective determination of probable petitioner’s allegations that the preliminary investigation was sham and that SPO III Berbano cause” as the complainant and his witnesses were never personally examined by any of the was partial are not supported by competent proof. this 1992 and September 24.[35] The Sandiganbayan considered that incident quash. 749 mandating that proceedings in preliminary investigations shall be strictly 1993. 1992 “of the motion for reconsideration yet to be filed on 18 August 1992.” and that was to proceed with the 1992. come high or low waters. On January 5. Roxas.

functions and duties to: is for the Sandiganbayan to hold in abeyance any further proceedings conducted and to “(2) Direct. of probable cause to warrant the filing of an information.. the remedy is not to resort forthwith to certiorari or is also required by due process in adversary proceedings. agency or instrumentality thereof. However. any form.e. but acting merely as an officer office or official for fact-finding investigation. or any subdivision. 07 dated April 10. Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution. the Ombudsman’s failure to personally administer oath to the on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the complainant does not mean that the Ombudsman did not personally determine the existence Government.[58] amounted to a denial of his rights to due process and to speedy disposition of the charge The referral of the complaint to the NBI does not mean that the Ombudsman abdicated its constitutional against him.” (Underscoring supplied. to perform and expedite anomalous in this case. should have reduced the evidence it had gathered into affidavits. censure. demotion. Section 4 (a) of Administrative Order No.[54] mid-1990[60] or after the complaint in this case was referred to the NBI. which was in force and effect when Abaño filed the constitutionally sanctioned practice in the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure lends validity to complaint against petitioner. upon complaint or at its own instance. However. prevent. issued pursuant to the rule-making power of the Ombudsman under coupled with the favorable consideration of the complaint albeit manifestly false and politically Section 13 (8) of the 1987 Constitution and Sections 18. i. 13 proceedings. sought by petitioner. as protectors of the people. granting arguendo that the preliminary investigation was sham and highly government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter. 07. Section 2 (d) of Administrative Order ordinary notary public and that the sworn statements of witnesses against him were sworn to No. notify the complainants of Neither did the Sandiganbayan violate petitioner’s right to due process of law by its failure to personally the action taken and the result thereof. Dacuycuy. Rule 1. the proper procedure Constitution vests in the Ombudsman the powers. People v.) Petitioner contends that both the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan failed to examine the Thus. 07 took effect in authorized to administer oaths. not deputized by the Ombudsman. in appropriate cases. 181 SCRA 1 [1990]). or any subdivision. In such cases. In a preliminary examination for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. fine. As pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor that the PCGG. in Diaz v. The same authority to act on complaints “in failed to examine the complainant under oath. provided for in Rule II. suspension. 07. the submission of prohibition. there is no showing of such special circumstances. 23 and 27 of “The Ombudsman Act motivated. [56] information. and conducted the preliminary investigation erroneously and irregularly. or to stop. in (3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or employee at the interest of justice. the inclusion of that Article XI. Article XI.. the Ombudsman did not thereby delegate the conduct complainant personally to determine the existence of probable cause that would warrant the of the preliminary investigation of the case to that investigative bureau. ensure compliance therewith. and correct any abuse or impropriety in observed by the Sandiganbayan. to whom the letters were addressed and who became the complainant in the General (citing Nierras v. 6770 (“The Ombudsman Act of before filing the information. and shall. [49] of 1989. (b) the preliminary investigation was hasty. The Court has been cited to in any form. preparatory to the preliminary investigation still to be rues the fact that the complaint filed by Abaño against him was subscribed to before an conducted by the Ombudsman. 1990. In any event. He was only the fact-finding function. What was delegated filing of an information against him and. owned or controlled corporations. Clearly in consonance with the provision that the complaint may be action of certiorari or prohibition may exceptionally be allowed. On the other hand.”[50] subscribed only before the Ombudsman or his duly authorized representative. the Government is restated in Section 13 of Republic Act No. which is embodied in Administrative Order No. However. Section 13 of the 1987 thereof[53] may not warrant the quashal of an information. it is settled that a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition is not the proper remedy In accordance with the foregoing constitutional and statutory provisions. either verbal or in writing. as well as of any thereof. 1 SCRA 990). to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information. an incomplete preliminary investigation[52]or the absence and statutory duty to conduct preliminary investigations.” At the outset. process of law. This is succinctly underscored Sandiganbayan. 12. this Court held considering the case submitted for decision. This Court in Quiñon v. and recommend his removal. that defect was cured when the above procedure was in fact any act or duty required by law. but to continue with the case in due course and.[57] However. et al. before issuing the warrant of arrest. consequently. we shall resolve the issue of whether or not the Ombudsman fault. Sandiganbayan as follows: found as sufficient basis the Solicitor General’s sworn testimony at the joint fact-finding “The special civil action of certiorari or prohibition is not the proper remedy against interlocutory orders investigation conducted by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and the Ombudsman for the such as those assailed in these proceedings. 1989. a court is not required to review in detail . adverse interlocutory order is rendered. agency or instrumentality thereof. any public official or employee of the remand the case to the Ombudsman for preliminary investigation or completion Government.[55] held valid charges that were not made in writing or under oath. The SCRA 309. 1989”). Hence. “Sec. in Olivas v. when an unfavorable verdict is affidavits is not mandatory and jurisdictional. The jurisdiction of the the issue of the sufficiency in form of the complaint was rendered moot and academic by Ombudsman over the complaint is not even questioned by petitioner[51] as his motion to quash petitioner’s filing of a counter-affidavit wherein he controverted the allegations in the the information is based on the allegedly “highly anomalous preliminary investigation” that complaint. an order denying a motion to quash the latter to conduct an investigation. or prosecution. by referring Abano’s complaint to the NBI.) examine the complainant before it issued the warrant of arrest. shall act promptly Under the circumstances of this case. the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition must fail. the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure does not require that the complaint be no such special circumstances in the cases at bar. Section 3 of the same administrative handed down to take an appeal in the manner authorized by law. the investigating officer has the option to forward the complaint to the appropriate before a provincial fiscal. While Administrative Order No. persecutory and based on inadmissible evidence thereby violating his right to due Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman. and Acharon v. Purisima. 17800 was constitutionally defective because the Ombudsman. and (c) the unexplained 4-year delay in resolving the preliminary investigation. Madaluyo. violated his constitutional rights to speedy trial and to due process of law. In the case at bar. including government. and one declaring the accused to have waived his right to present evidence and where the complaint against petitioner was initiated by anonymous letters. this Court.[59] Notably.” (Underscoring supplied. It is only where there are order merely states that it is “preferable” that the complaint “be in writing and under oath” for special circumstances clearly demonstrating the inadequacy of an appeal that the special civil its speedier disposition.” is also reiterated in Rule 1. the established rule is that when such an submission of affidavits. Office of the Ombudsman. on the issue alone of the propriety of the remedy the performance of duties. the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The Ombudsman and his Deputies. Section 3 of the Rules of malicious. provides: the Ombudsman’s action in this case. and the Sandiganbayan.Petitioner alleges in this petition for certiorari and prohibition that: (a) the determination of “probable The mandate to act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against officers or employees of cause” in Criminal Case No. under Rule II. approved into law on November 17.

Jr. If delay may be “It must be stressed that a preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial.”[67] “The main function of the government prosecutor during the preliminary investigation is merely to The length of time it took before the conclusion of the preliminary investigation may only be attributed to determine the existence of probable cause. Quisumbing. concur. delay. it is presumed that the date of the resolution where its filing was approved by the prosecutor’s there is no such motive and that public respondents merely filed the case to correct a public superiors.”[68] preliminary investigations. There is thus no reason to conclude that “The established rule is that a preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive the Ombudsman ran roughshod over the petitioner’s right to a speedy preliminary display of the parties’ evidence. such faux pas did not violate petitioner’s substantive rights. prosecutor to prepare his complaint or information. In Cruz. and the prejudice caused by the xxx xxx x x x. Some seven and a half months later. The trial of a case is conducted precisely for the reception of evidence of the mistaken with a hasty resolution of cases at the expense of thoroughness and correctness. the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. 17800. As we stated earlier. to enable the petitioner filed his counter-affidavit. prior to petitioner’s filing of his motion for reconsideration on August 18. shows that petitioner filed two motions for extension of time to file the motion for Davide. the same should be reckoned only from October 25. JJ. the Ombudsman’s discretion is paramount. Gonzaga-Reyes. reinvestigation without the knowledge of SPO III Berbano. the record SO ORDERED. in Camanag v. The record clearly shows that the Ombudsman the conduct of its official business shall stand. What the latter resolved on August Pardo. 1991 when of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime. this Court cannot supplant Ombudsman was “hasty. or on June 11. C. an inquiry into the sufficiency of evidence to warrant conviction is not “The Court is not unmindful of the duty of the Ombudsman under the Constitution and Republic Act No. And. Petitioner’s insinuation that he was subjected to the proceedings before the issued on June 11. and leaves to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of Finally. 1992. The error in wrong.”[61] In the absence of evidence that the Sandiganbayan did Neither is there factual support to petitioner’s claim that the 4-year delay in the completion of the not personally evaluate the necessary records of the case. Kapunan. Vitug. v. exerted utmost effort to determine the veracity of Abaño’s allegations against petitioner. Likewise. assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused. the factors engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is that may be considered and weighed are “the length of delay. it is apropos to state once again the nature of a preliminary investigation. Thus. Puno. acting on the facts within the believe the same hook. Bellosillo. 1992 or DIRECTED to proceed with deliberate dispatch in the disposition of Criminal Case No. 1992.”[64] evidence presented during the preliminary investigation. It is not a trial of the case on the merits 1991. In the determination of whether or not that right has been violated. thus resulting in a steady stream “x x x. was caused by the review of GIO II Caraos’ whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. assailed Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan are hereby AFFIRMED. if indeed it could be called one. All told. Guerrero. Recently. that period of time is merely directory. this Court encourages individuals who clamor for efficient government service to freely lodge their said: Complaints against wrongdoings of government personnel. evidence. 1992. malicious and persecutory” and that it was based on inadmissible the Ombudsman’s discretion in the determination of what crime to charge an accused.[63] In the performance of his task to determine probable Judicial notice should be taken of the fact that the nature of the Office of the Ombudsman cause. GIO II Caraos issued the Resolution recommending the filing of the information. the presumption of regularity in preliminary investigation is unexplained. prosecution in support of the charge. required. 1992 was petitioner’s motion for reinvestigation before the Sandiganbayan. However. But such duty should not be offense charged. the Court said: petitioner’s right to speedy disposition of the charge was brushed aside. the reasons for such delay. specifically the affidavits of Neither is there merit in petitioner’s contention that the preliminary investigation conducted by the witnesses. What is required is that the judge credence for lack of sufficient proof thereon. this Court finds no reason to reverse the assailed Resolutions of the Petitioner emphasizes the fact that while the Resolution recommending the filing of the information was Sandiganbayan. Thus: In determining probable cause. there is no ground to give credence to petitioner’s claim that the complainant should be charged discretion in the exercise of determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will as a briber on account of his admission that he gave petitioner some sum of money. That At this juncture... were hearsay and inadmissible. Melo. The file it was with the imprimatur of the Ombudsman himself. In the absence of any imputation that public case considering that the date of the information should have been corrected to conform to respondents were impelled by ill-motive in filing the case against him. SPO III Berbano is presumed to have issued the “personally evaluates the report and supporting documents submitted by the prosecution in Resolution denying the motion for reinvestigation in the regular performance of his duties. it took the NBI almost two years to complete its report on the matter does not mean that People. and to file the corresponding information if he the adherence of the Ombudsman and the NBI to the rules of procedure and the rudiments of finds it to be so. in a reasonable mind. and it is often the only means imputed in the proceedings.[65] This may show oversight in the handling of the documents pertinent to this established with sufficient evidence.. especially since the recommendation to WHEREFORE.”[62] must come out with a resolution. (S)uffice it to state that this Court has adopted a policy of non-interference in the conduct of of cases reaching the Office of the Ombudsman. Jr. or that establish ‘probable cause’ for filing of information against the supposed offender. the Ombudsman did not circumstances as would excite the belief. Purisima.J. Buena. the evidence submitted during the preliminary investigation.. place the persons against whom it is taken in jeopardy. petitioner’s allegation that SPO III Berbano was not an impartial prosecutor cannot be given . 1992. the probably guilty thereof. and it does not recommendation by her superiors. The allegations of Abaño’s complaint had to be verified. has not been May 19. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the 6770 to act promptly on Complaints brought before him. Jr. the Court held that while the Rules of Court knowledge of the prosecutor. and De Leon. Panganiban. The Sandiganbayan is With respect to the denial by SPO III Berbano of the motion for reinvestigation on August 14. the information was already prepared almost a month earlier on Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan for politically motivated reasons. that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he provides a ten-day period from submission of the case within which an investigating officer was prosecuted. determining probable cause. the information was filed with the Sandiganbayan. probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and fair play. and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and Further delay.[66] Thirty-six (36) days thereafter or on November 29. it is for the presentation of such evidence only as may investigation. 14. Mendoza. line and sinker.[69] the date of the information did not affect its validity.

v.. 1994. 220 SCRA 55. 1993. Rollo. p.. p. February 10. Diamsay. 120428 September 27. No. p.. Escareal as Chairman and Associate Justices Augusto M. 186 SCRA 217. No. THE ANTI- [28] Ibid. 25. 409) where the Court [11] Ibid. P/SR. pp. [45] [4] Ibid. p. GRAFT LAWS AND THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS. G. Rollo... ZUBIA. respondents.. 221 SCRA 349. Sec. 2000. [64] [33] Rollo. 686. [43] [2] Ibid. 63-64. [67] [39] Record. March 17. G. Torralba v. 219 Phil. [30] Ibid. 1995 P/CHIEF SUPT. THE OMBUDSMAN.. or (5) Lawyers in government service. 260. Escareal Dansal v. so designated by the Ombudsman.. 1990. MENDOZA. April 7. [42] [1] Rollo.R. 1993. pp. petitioners.. . Doromal v. Section 3 of Administrative Order No. (3) Deputized [24] Ibid. No. p. MANUEL B. the preliminary investigation shall be deemed concluded [36] Ibid. 85468. 1992. [44] [3] Ibid. [41] Rollo. August 19.. Jr.R. 192 SCRA 183. Hon. Nos. pp.36 after the respondent shall have submitted his counter-affidavit and supporting evidence. Under Rule 112. MICHAEL RAY B. 101689. Alvizo v. held that the Deputy Ombudsman did not err in denying the motion to quash and the motion [12] Ibid. 41. Prosecutors. See: Velasco v. pp. Record. 59-61. No.. 97. Amores and Sabino R.R. p. Ibid. 1995 G. p. 126814. p. Section 4 (d) of Administrative Order No. 70-74. 1994.R. 07 of the Ombudsman that disallows “a motion to [14] Ibid.. 458-459. [60] Jr. See: Bautista v. Salazar. January 13. FRANCISCO G. for reconsideration because he acted in accordance with the Revised Rules of Court and [13] Record of Crim. and/or after hearing where clarificatory questions propounded by the investigating officer [38] G. Supra. 203. pp.. investigation: (1) Ombudsman Investigators. p. 111130. March 8. 101202. March 2. ROLANDO B. 07 states that the following may conduct preliminary [23] Ibid. 120422 September 27. 12. Rule II.R. pp. No. 9-11. September 7. Pilapil v. June 5. at pp. G.” [52] [15] Ibid. People.R. Amores as Chairman and Associate Justices Romeo M.. pp... Sandiganbayan.. 361. 455 citing Enrile v. administrative order was published in the May 1. Case No. p. No. JR. PANFILO M. 205 SCRA 162. 233 SCRA 439. 1998. 360. p. [56] [19] Record. 2000. INSP. p.. 70. [48] [7] Ibid. pp. 1989... BASILIO LUCERO. 07 provides that it shall take effect upon completion of [25] Rollo. p. 168-175.. 65. Rule V. 126082. p. G. Section 4 of Administrative Order No. 99289-90. May 12. SUPREME COURT vs. presided by Judge Lino L. 969 (1997). 213. 224.127-132. December 20.R.R. p. G. p. 101421. P/SR. 102420. Casaclang (G. [50] [9] Ibid. 219 SCRA 675. [62] [31] Ibid. 10. [46] [5] Ibid. Petition. 66. 23. pp.169. 69863-65. 294 SCRA 394. 945. p. AQUINO. [51] [10] Ibid. GIL B.R.. THE SANDIGANBAYAN. [49] [8] Ibid..R. 402 (1985). [69] and Narciso T. Fernandez. pp. 105-126. [65] [34] Record.. pp. 290. 19. [59] [22] Record. p. at p.R. No. [54] [17] Ibid. Atienza as Members.R. p. pp. LACSON. p. 3rd ed. 134-135. [47] [6] Ibid. 230 SCRA 33. INSP. 1990. P/CHIEF INSP. 62-63. (RODRIGUEZ. 1993. June 27. THE PCGG. p.R. 67 & 70. p. G. p. 96-98. [55] [18] Ibid. 55. Cruz. 56. 17. 160. G. 309 (1997).. Ibid. 96. December 10. Manila THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and HON. No. 15-16. See: Santiago v.R. [66] [35] Ibid. pp. 110436. 1990 issue of the Manila Bulletin [27] Record. 3 of the Rules of Court. 13. 54. 75. p. p. Vasquez. Sandiganbayan. Sandiganbayan. p. 103. Record. p. 92163. 102. CASACLANG. pp. pp. Record. No. The [26] Rollo. 128). Nos.. 26. 338 Phil. p. G. (2) Special Prosecuting Officers. 52-53... 56-58. No. as Members. 136-167. pp. 177 SCRA 354. 295. [57] [20] Ibid.R. 155-158. (4) Investigating Officials authorized by law to conduct preliminary investigation. No. Petition. p. P/INSP. No. [63] [32] Record. 92. G. Sandiganbayan. [68] [40] With Associate Justice Augusto M. 335 Phil. LAGMAN. G. p. shall have been answered. 17800. 101978.. pp. 11. 1-2. 1994. 239 SCRA 283. G. in his FIRST DIVISION capacity as the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military. ROMEO ACOP and SENIOR SUPT. [53] [16] Rollo. Petition. Sandiganbayan. 73... quash (or dismiss) except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. [61] [29] Ibid. per the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan composed of Associate Justice Romeo M. 76-94. de Leon. 189-192. G. Republic of the Philippines CHIEF SUPT. [37] Rollo. No. publication in the Official Gazette or in three (3) newspapers of general circulation. 199. [58] [21] Ibid.

of the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights. JR. P/CHIEF SUPT. eleven (11) slain suspected "Kuratong Baleleng" gang members were summarily executed by the composite teams. . Senior Police Officer (SPO) 2 Eduardo de los Reyes of the Central Intelligence investigation be conducted against herein petitioners and all the participating personnel of the Command (CIC) made an expose'. Sandiganbayan. . 95-17. we ordered the parties to submit their respective memoranda. The first is the kernel issue raised in G. and Domingo Doctor Jr. on 27 July 1995. . 1 Provoked during oral arguments was Human Rights with copies of various documents. DAVIDE. No. 120428 to comment on the supplemental petition filed therein. Consequently. Respondents undertake to submit investigations involving civilian personnel of the Government. CIC. TMC and CPDC listed in the After Operations Report of the PNP. summary execution. . . Traffic Management Command (TMC).respondents. 1995. neither did they move for reconsideration.R. Rule II of Administrative Order No. NCRC. 1995.R. . PNP. 0084 to public respondent Casaclang. as members. in his capacity as the Deputy Ombudsman for the conducting a legislative inquiry into the May 18. 07 of the Office of the On June 2. . MANUEL BUKARNO B. 120422 and the petitioners therein pray that this Court re. . of the Office of the Solicitor General as follows: On June 7. CASACLANG. ALAP-AP. the Commission on Human Rights. 1995. the statements of SPO2 De los Reyes stating that no shootout had taken place and that the and IMELDA PANCHO MONTERO. stating that there was no shootout. 1995 incident. Acting Ombudsman Francisco A. we required the On May 29. No. 1995. directed public receipt thereof. 1995. . JOB A. Blancaflor and After the oral arguments on 5 July 1995. Nenita G. 120428 and the public respondents on 19 July 1995. Jr. Baleleng" gang. submitted to the. signed by him in his capacity as grave abuse of discretion when he set the case for preliminary investigation and required the Chairman of the Special Investigating Committee. directing Ombudsman Investigator Bienvenido C. public respondent Casaclang sent written requests to Senator Raul Roco. Ombudsman the required After Operations Report of the PNP. the investigations being conducted by the above-mentioned agencies. respondent P/Chief Supt. were consolidated as they arose from the investigators with Ombudsman Investigator Bienvenido Blancaflor as head of the panel and same factual milieu. . he executed a sworn statement to this effect. and OTHER TASK FORCE HABAGAT On May 30. . sworn statements of the relatives of the slain suspected "Kuratong Baleleng" gang.R. that the eleven (11) suspected members of the "Kuratong Baleleng" gang were victims of On June 13. . 1995 incident. . On June 5. in a letter-complaint addressed to the 1. . counter-affidavits to the complaint within ten days from notice. eleven (11) suspected members of the notorious robbery gang.R. 1995. 95-18. 2 respondent Deputy Ombudsman Casaclang to monitor the investigations being conducted by The petitioners did not comply with the 14 June 1995 order.: On June 1. through Commissioner Narciso Monteiro. the documents and transcripts if this Honorable Court so requires as they are voluminous and The undisputed facts which gave rise to this controversy are summarized in the Consolidated Comment reproduction and sorting thereof will take time. . On May 30. for documents relative to the May 18. creating a panel of These cases. public respondent Casaclang issued the questioned order directing petitioner[s] and accusing the PACC. 1995. The report recommended that a preliminary On May 22. 120422. NENITA G. Macamus. . vs. issues within which the parties agreed to limit their arguments: On the same date. Central Police District Command (CPDC) and Criminal Investigation On June 8. No. Villa. the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) received the separate sworn statements of personnel and officers involved in the May 18. SPO2 De la Cruz corroborated Military. 120428 which lead to the status quo are as follows: On 26 July 1995. respondent Casaclang issued a subpoena duces tecum/ad testificandumaddressed to On May 18. 20 June 1995 in G. respondent Casaclang directed the Panel of Investigator[s] to terminate the Ombudsman. On 17 July 1995. furnished public respondent PERSONNEL CHARGED BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN IN OMB-AFP-CRIM-95. Chairman respondents in G. P/INSP. Jr. . The following day. . 120428. PACC. Presidential Anti-Crime Report" of the PNP relative to the operations which resulted in the May 18. . . and on 3 July 1995. . petitioners to submit their counter-affidavits before any preliminary evaluation of the complaint The letter-complaint was docketed at the Office of the Ombudsman as case OMB-AFP-CRIM-95-0084. 1995. public respondent Casaclang was furnished by the Senate Committee on Justice and examine the holding in Zaldivar vs. Further developments in G.. 1995. incident. and Instead. 1995. and killing of the eleven (11) suspected "Kuratong Baleleng" gang members. as required by Section 2. . Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights.R. ALVAREZ. both filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. .R. 1995. 1995. .. Sullano to monitor The petitioners in G. No. No. TMC. Whether or not public respondent Deputy Ombudsman for Military Manuel Casaclang committed letter-complaint the Investigation Report dated May 31. 120428. Sedfrey Ordoñez. 120422 complied on 17 July 1995. SPO2 Corazon de la Cruz appeared and testified before the Joint Senate Committee BGEN. the Panel of Investigators submitted their Evaluation Report in OMB-AFP-CRIM-95- Command (CIC). 1995 in G. J. the Court defined the common Investigators Avelino C. . the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights. as well as transcripts of its proceedings. investigation and submit its resolution within 60 days from receipt of his order. respondent Mayo. Commission (PACC). public respondent Casaclang issued on the same date Office Order supplemental petition in G. . . 1995. the corollary issue of whether the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military can conduct relative to its investigation of the May 18. public respondent Casaclang issued Office Order No. The report contained the list of On May 24. the petitioners questioned the conduct of the preliminary investigation without the the Philippine National Police (PNP) Director for Investigation regarding the alleged required preliminary evaluation in their respective petitions filed with this Court on: 19 June shootout. 1995. No. . MANUEL B. . JR. Series of 1995. No. Job A. De los Reyes stated NCRC. . . MAYO.. 1995. CIC and CPDC of murder. . Correos and Ricardo A. He attached to his 2. and Hon. a In response to the above directive. Associate Graft Investigation Officers Richard U. directing him or his duly authorized were killed in an alleged shootout with composite teams of the National Capital Regional representative to appear before the Panel of Investigators and to submit the "After Operations Command (NCRC). No. "Kuratong Baleleng. . the CHR. Mayo. nine others to submit their counter-affidavits and controverting evidence within ten days from On May 26. Acting Ombudsman Francisco Villa ordered the petitioners in G. On June 14. in a handwritten note. . . No. Casaclang with copies of the 0084. Alap-ap and Imelda Pancho Montero are relatives of the slain suspected gang members. MYRNA ABALORA. petitioners. At the oral arguments on 5 July 1995. . . 1995. 120428 to file their alleged shootout incident. Whether it is the Office of the Ombudsman or the Office of the Special Prosecutor which has Ombudsman. while the petitioners in G. No.R. . charged petitioners and several others with murder in connection with the jurisdiction over the complaint in question.R.R. . the petitioners filed a motion with this Court to cite Acting Ombudsman Villa in . in behalf of the PNP Director General." PNP Director General Recaredo Sarmiento. 1995. operations against the "Kuratong Myrna Abalora. . 1995.

people will know when to go to the Tanodbayan and when to go to the Ombudsman? In a Manifestation and Omnibus Motion filed with this Court on 28 July 1995. the petitioners between the purely prosecutory function of the Tanodbayan and the function of a pure concluded. functions and duties: As to the first proposition. functions. MR. No." 6 and maintain that the Legislature could. Ombudsman as a champion of the citizens. Section 12 of the original draft of the proposed Article on based on the pertinent provisions of the 1987 Constitution. Rule II of Madam President. 12. which has a duplication. and there seems to be reversed by Acting Ombudsman Villa. of the Ombudsman. misconduct or injustice. that Villa's take-over and order in question prejudged the very MR. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers. the petitioners posit The petitioners hardly persuade us on this matter. 120422 joined cause with the prayer of the petitioners in G. Regalado. petitioners in G. All that he relies upon is his persuasive power. the Ombudsman does not have a prosecutory function nor punitive powers. the None. . the Committee decided to make a distinction preliminary investigation on the complaint filed against the petitioners. but what is meant by "required" is that the Ombudsman cannot compel.R. Villa effectively denied the petitioners the different appellate levels within the Office So. Alikpala. however. Acting an overlapping in the functions of the Tanodbayan and the Ombudsman. therefore. so that our investigation" and subsequently issued the questioned 26 July 1995 order. essentially. He asserted that Yes. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers. Thus. the progress of the case may be traced in this wise: On 23 admittedly a little bit different from the 1973 concept. Thus: (8) Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other functions or duties as may be provided by MR. Then Commissioner. . functions. that in MR. only to be I noticed that the proposed provisions of the Ombudsman retain the Tanodbayan. "is based on a wrong premise. reads: Constitution. What is the clear-cut Ombudsman Villa took over "the direct supervision and control of the preliminary dividing line between the functions of the Ombudsman and the Tanodbayan. the petitioners in G. MONSOD: (sponsorship speech) law. On 28 June 1995. that it violated Section 3. . Florenz D. COLAYCO: issues pending before the Supreme Court and was. through statute. contempt of court. the petitioners filed a motion with respondent Casaclang to suspend the xxx xxx xxx preliminary investigation against them pending resolution of the petition for certiorari filed with MR. Said conclusion. i.R. but I would like enumeration in the said Section does not include the Ombudsman himself nor the Acting to ask Commissioner Nolledo to explain this in detail. (emphasis supplied). which the Committee recommended for incorporation in the Special Prosecutor is a subordinate of or may be subsumed by the Ombudsman under the Constitution. admissions of Commissioners Christian S. for this Court re-examine the conclusion reached in Zaldivar.R. 13 by the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers. prescribe such other powers. So I believe that there should that under the 1987 Constitution. Paragraph 6. 11 In substance. 8 June 1995.R. RODRIGO: so doing. No." left to a regular Tanodbayan. MONSOD: 120422 challenged the take-over. we conceive the enjoin him from implementing his order. we required the respondents to comment on the motions for contempt. commenced in relation to a case pending before a lower court. Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers) of the Constitution. also remarked: I MR. The whole task of prosecution should be petitioners assert. number of cases for prosecution which took almost all his time. The petitioners contended that the 26 July 1995. be left to the proposed Office of the Special Prosecutor. RODRIGO: the Supreme Court. 120422 concede that in the light of this Court's decision In connection also with that concern of Commissioner Rodrigo regarding the Ombudsman being merely in Zaldivar. now a highly respected Member of the Court. The petitioners extensively quote the As finally approved by the Commission after several amendments. 9 Ombudsman among those authorized to conduct preliminary investigations. On 31 July 1995. Monsod and Jose S. The public respondents filed their Comment on 15 August 1995. RODRIGO: the latter's course when no writ of injunction restraining it has been issued — as in the Yes. MR. and (d). the suggesting or administrative aspect of his position. No. Second. No. Hence. 12 the Commission did not hesitate to recommend separate and distinct from "the power to conduct preliminary investigations. Colayco (Chairman and Section 13. and second. No. The reasons he could not function in his administrative or recommendatory capacity was the petitioners plead. (c). the petitioners in G. In a memorandum dated 21 July 1995. that to the Ombudsman. the petitioners refer to the Record of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 xxx xxx xxx (hereinafter Commission) on the debates relative to the powers of the Ombudsman proposed (6) To exercise such powers and perform such functions or duties as may be provided by Law. RODRIGO: 120428. 13. COLAYCO: compliance. the order contravened Section 3 (a). does not interrupt MR. Rule 71 of the Rules of Court Ombudsman who will use the prestige and persuasive powers of his office. respondent Casaclang granted the motion. And third. of the Committee) during the interpellations to the effect that it Sec. and duties that the latter "remains with the Tanodbayan. I have here the records of the former Ombudsman to show that one of the jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation on the complaint filed against them. 120422. order preempted this xxx xxx xxx Court from ruling on the issue regarding the Ombudsman's jurisdiction to conduct a With respect to the Sandiganbayan and the Tanodbayan. instead. policy-determining. To call the and prayed that Villa be cited in contempt and a temporary restraining order be issued to attention of government officials to any impropriety. Persuasive power plus the ability to require that the proper legal steps be taken to compel the pursuant to Peza vs. this Court. it is erroneous to conclude that the Accountability of Public Officers. 10 present case. the Tanodbayan no longer has the authority to conduct really be an Ombudsman to take care of the recommendatory. . . respectively.. policy- preliminary investigations except upon order of the Ombudsman.4 it is the Ombudsman. this is now embodied in paragraph 8. contemptuous.R. the petitioners forward two propositions in support of their plea: First. and duties: was the intention of the Committee not to grant to the proposed Ombudsman prosecutorial xxx xxx xxx powers which would. The petitioners emphasized that the champion of the citizen who is not bound by legal technicalities of legal forms. asserting: First. the difference lies in one being a prosecutory arm and the other a Administrative Order No. now the Special Prosecutor". While the intention to withhold prosecutorial powers that the Ombudsman's "duty to investigate on its own or on complaint of any person" 5 is from the Ombudsman was indeed present. which provides: Vice-Chairman. 7 Sec. 07 issued by the Ombudsman. 3 the mere pendency of a special civil action for certiorari before officer to comply. and in MR. The concept of the Ombudsman here is Anent the turn of events in G.e. and not the Office of the Special Prosecutor. Acting Ombudsman Villa filed his comment on 7 August 1995. REGALADO: As to the first issue.

. . since we state that the powers of the Ombudsman can later on be implemented by the MR. This is not foreclosed. if it is provided by law. On the other hand. MR. position. With respect to the argument that he is a toothless animal. MR. that is correct. neither have the MR. but we are also saying that he can exercise such Law. the second proposition raised by the petitioners in G. may it not? recommended the approval of the 27 resolutions for the creation of the office of the MR. RODRIGO: petitioners established that the latter remains with the Tanodbayan. Section 5 reads: "The Tanodbayan shall continue to function and exercise its powers So. as if he is being brought up to the same level as the President. 120422 is that the Office of the That is correct. now the Special So. RODRIGO: MR. Article XI of the Constitution. COLAYCO: At bottom. MR. No. of our people too much and then disappoint them. MONSOD: such powers or perform such functions or duties as may be provided by law. conferred on the office of the Ombudsman created under this Constitution. but we leave it up to Congress at some future time if it feels that it may need to designate MR. 8. Yes. Madam President. I suppose. shall continue to function end exercise its powers as provided by law. the Yes. pursuant to. functions. unlike that of a eunuch. 16 . 1630. No. because we want to avoid what happened in 1973. Anyway. hand. P. there is the interpretation that he is a competitor to the Tanodbayan the continuance of his functions and the exercise of the jurisdiction given to him President. Let us go back to the division between the powers of the Tanodbayan and the Ombudsman which says However. Ombudsman." The sponsors admitted that the while Sections 6. we want to give the concept of a The Tanodbayan. xxx xxx xxx MR. 10. Section 7 recognizes the continued existence of the Tanodbayan.D. RODRIGO: legislature. the petitioners note. it is not an irreversible disability. and duties to the Madam President. Pursuant first to the Constitution and the law which mandated the creation of the office. separate MR. it is evident that the petitioners have not borne out any distinction between "the That is correct. duty to investigate" and "the power to conduct preliminary investigations". I am afraid the Gentleman has the wrong perception of the system. we are told he has no teeth and he No. COLAYCO: MR. COLAYCO: punitive nor prosecutory powers but only persuasive powers. No. if we create a constitutional body which has neither MR. the former is not at all mentioned in Section 5." So. we quote Commissioners Colayco and Monsod during interpellation by What we wanted to avoid is the situation where it deteriorates into a prosecution arm. except those pure Ombudsman a chance under the Constitution. I read the committee report which legislature may vest him with powers taken away from the Tanodbayan. Prosecutor. perhaps it might be helpful if we give the spirit and intendment of the Committee. powers and functions as may be provided by law in accordance with the direction of the MR. On the other the Ombudsman. No. RODRIGO: MR. this Court can only reject the petitioners' first proposition. the petitioners deduce that Madam President. On one hand. are "such functions or duties as may be provided by law. 9." supplied) MR. Madam President. it can be taken away by law. Section 12(6) says that among the functions that can be performed by the Ombudsman on one hand. MR. MONSOD (reacting to statements of Commissioner Blas Ople): And it is possible that pretty soon the Tanodbayan will be a useless appendage and will lose all his May we just state that perhaps the honorable Commissioner has looked at it in too much of an absolutist powers. COLAYCO: the bureaucracy. We are leaving to the lacks other things. MONSOD: under the Office of the Ombudsman. The petitioners call this Court's attention to the fact that. RODRIGO: the concept in its form at the present. . because it is under P. this is a reversible disability. 14 (emphasis supplied). I was saying that the powers enumerated here for the Ombudsman are not exclusive. I am coming to that. RODRIGO: The powers of the Ombudsman are enumerated in Section 12. We Commissioner Rodrigo: wanted to give the idea of the Ombudsman a chance. in fact. we do not want to foreclose the possibility that in the future. 15 (emphasis as provided by law. MONSOD: So. COLAYCO: thinking of Commissioner Rodrigo.R. but notwithstanding the explicit purpose enunciated in that report. as it may see fit that: may have to give additional powers to the Ombudsman. D. and 12 thereof only speak of the Ombudsman and his deputies legislature later on might remove some powers from the Tanodbayan and transfer these to (with the composition of the Office of the Ombudsman enumerated in Section 5). Section 7 does not imply that the Office of the Special Prosecutor is absorbed by subsumed MR. And precisely. RODRIGO: and also a chance to really function as a champion of the citizen. not against the President. we might be raising the hopes They are not exclusive.Expounding on this power of Congress to prescribe other powers. RODRIGO: what powers the Ombudsman need in order that he be more effective. the Assembly. . . 1630 — did not follow the main thrust. 11. why not leave this to the legislature? Precisely. COLAYCO: thereafter known as the Office of the Special Prosecutor. we would like to say that we are promoting MR. . with prestige and persuasive powers. The Ombudsman is seen as a civil advocate or a champion of the citizens against MR. instead it MR. RODRIGO: and distinct from the Ombudsman. MR. COLAYCO: In view of the foregoing. RODRIGO: No. The last of the enumerated functions of the Ombudsman is: "to exercise MR. Thus. MR. the Yes. these powers can also be exercised by the Tanodbayan? I agree with the Commissioner. We do not think that at this time we should prescribe this. Special Prosecutor is not a subordinate agency to the Ombudsman and is. Thus. implementing law — the last one. MONSOD: created the Tanodbayan. COLAYCO: Ombudsman. what I am worried about is.

office or agency. was to authorize the In the second place.By way of elaboration. it may take over. It is said here that the Tanodbayan or the Ombudsman would be a toothless or a paper tiger. No. xxx xxx xxx The contention is not impressed with merit. the petitioners conclude that the inclusion of the Office of the Special Prosecutor as unjust. for by the description of his office. and duties herein or to place the Office of the Special Prosecutor under the Office of the President. 6770 authorized the office of the Special Prosecutor. No. No. ROMULO: Tanodbayan by P. because if the Tanodbayan would make the In view of Section 6. line 21: THE OMBUDSMAN MAY evidently refers to the Tanodbayan's powers under P. improper or inefficient. . functions. N0. THE PRESIDENT: Section 13. in control and upon the authority of the Ombudsman. as described in Section 5? Ombudsman. No. Madam President. Accountability of Public Officers Commissioner Ople's original idea was to authorize the PCAPE and so forth. This was introduced during the period of individual independent of the Office of the President because it is now a constitutional creation. If he is toothless. he comes under the Office (1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person. Act Providing for the Functional and Structural Organization of the Office of the Ombudsman from any investigatory agency of Government. introduced by this writer. 24 the corresponding reports about failures. when one considers that by express mandate of paragraph 8. This Congress did through the passage of R. . 20 while the Ombudsman was granted the following powers. . This was explained by then Commissioner Florenz D. 6975." The underscored phrase amendment which is to add a last sentence to Section 11. even with PARGO. Congress may remove some of the powers granted to the MR. will not deprive him of the opportunity to render service to Juan dela Ombudsman to designate the said deputy. the amendment to the amendment Cruz. REGALADO: In fine. . That is not The proposal to have a separate Deputy Ombudsman for the military establishment came by way of an necessarily so. and wise. 1630 or grant it other powers. as the decree now reads. so that the legislation.D. except those powers Constitution was to place the Office of the Special Prosecutor under the Office of the conferred by the Constitution on the Office of the Ombudsman. so that amendments at the time the Commission deliberated on the proposed Article on the insidious tentacles of politics. almost all their time was taken up by criminal cases. 1630 and transfer them to the Ombudsman. 1630 orsubsequent amendatory DESIGNATE A SEPARATE DEPUTY FOR THE MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT. who was then a member of the Commission. R.A. petitioners. Firstly. what actually spawned or caused the failure of the justices of the II. no one has jurisdiction over the Tanodbayan. . Sandiganbayan is bereft of merit and xxx xxx xxx deserves no further consideration. as the decree now reads. or its investigators or representatives such authority or duty as shall statement as authority to advocate that the intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution was ensure the effective exercise or performance of the powers. In effect.A. Regalado as (b) [E]nter into plea bargaining agreements. and second. statement obviously referred to the Tanodbayan under P. 21 among MR. the petitioners contend further that the intent of the framers of the 1987 Prosecutor's powers under P. 19 (emphasis supplied). the suggestion seems logical. because it is the President who may remove him for a cause. 6770.D. Article XI of the Constitution. any act or omission of any of the President. Thus: henceforth known as the Office of the Special Prosecutor. ROMULO: others: Yes. as champions . Article XVI of the Constitution 23 and the law implementing it. At first blush. In other words. No. of the sensitivity of the then head of that office. R." Further. the Ombudsman may "exercise such other powers May the Chair inquire from the Chairman of the Committee what office would have administrative or perform functions or duties as may be provided by law. . are civilian personnel of then that would reflect upon the President who wanted to claim the alleged confidence of the the Government. or grant the Office of the Madam President. this Court holds that the plea to re-examine Zaldivar vs. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the among the offices under the Office of the Ombudsman in Section 3 18 of R. Tanodbayan insofar as monitoring and fiscalizing the government offices are concerned was Before we enter into a discussion of the second principal issue raised in these cases. 25 It is thus suggested that the Deputy Ombudsman for Military Affairs does people.D. of whether respondent Casaclang as Deputy Ombudsman for Military Affairs has the authority since they were under the Office of the President. In the same vein. and follows: (c) [P]erform such other duties assigned to it by the Ombudsman. 17 public officer or employee. the investigation of such cases. "shall continue to function and MR. the corollary issue due to two reasons: First. when such act or omission appears to be illegal. their funds came from that office. presidential control. to: complete contrast to the petitioners' stand. in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction. not have jurisdiction over them." it is indubitable then that Congress supervision now over the Tanodbayan? Is there any office that would have administrative has the power to place the Office of the Special Prosecutor under the Office of the supervision over the Tanodbayan. . 22 (emphasis supplied) MR. It follows then that Congress may remove any of the Tanodbayan's/Special entire Section 11 will now read as follows: "The Ombudsman and his Deputies. For these reasons. Section 7 of Article XI expressly provides that the then existing Tanodbayan. No. . as shown by the following excerpts of the proceedings of the Commission: Pursuing the present line of reasoning. except those conferred on With the indulgence of Commissioner Rodrigo and of the Committee. He may be Special Prosecutor such other powers and functions and duties as Congress may deem fit removed by the President for a cause. OPLE: exercise its powers as now or hereafter may be provided by law. to be President to appoint the said deputy. as has always been our problem. . 1630 — note how specific the Likewise. however. 6770 ("An Sandiganbayan and. then let us give him a little more teeth by making him amendment by Commissioner Blas Ople. his authority is or must be xxx xxx xxx confined to the military. who are officers of the Philippine National Police (PNP).A. malfunctions or omissions of the different ministries. President. may I proceed to read the the Office of the Ombudsman created under this Constitution.A. one of the principal reasons for the proposal to (a) [C]onduct preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the withhold prosecutorial powers from the Ombudsman was precisely to remove the office from Sandiganbayan. the Office of the Special Prosecutor was made an organic component of the Office So he is directly under the Office of the President? of the Ombudsman. THE PRESIDENT: Through the said law. and for Other Purposes") is unconstitutional and void.D. The said herein after provided. under the supervision and erstwhile Commissioner was in stating: ". at any stage. I have a to conduct a preliminary investigation involving civilian personnel of the Government must sneaking suspicion that they were prevented from making administrative monitoring because first be resolved. No. the petitioners misconstrue Commissioner Romulo's (10) Delegate to the Deputies.

Visayas. Madam President. the military Ombudsman. jointly submitted by graft in higher rank[s] and neglect of the needs of troops in combat zones. DAVIDE: Thank you. MONSOD: May I state a brief reason for this amendment. and Mindanao. (emphasis This proposed amendment merely seeks to extend the office of the Ombudsman to the military supplied). I seek the Committee's kind concurrence to this proposal. The Reform the Commissioners Ople and Davide and accepted by the Committee. as amended. — The authority and responsibility for the exercise of the mandate of xxx xxx xxx the Office of the Ombudsman and for the discharge of its powers and functions shall be THE PRESIDENT: vested in the Ombudsman. of the people. there has arisen in recent years a type of fraternal association raised their hand. While Section 31 thereof declares: MR. the The approved amendment is now found in Section 5. therefore. MONSOD: as shown by the summary of antecedent facts earlier quoted. which reads: implied accusation being that most of the resources are used up in Manila instead of sent to Sec. We will now address the second principal issue. MR. Madam President.) following "Mindanao" to The original Ombudsman was created in Sweden in 1810 and has survived practically unchanged for read as follows: A SEPARATE DEPUTY FOR THE MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT MAY over 170 years. including government-owned corporations. was superimposed on an existing structure of enlisted THE PRESIDENT: spokesmen chosen by each unit of the Norwegian Armed Forces. add a new sentence after the period (. How about the Committee? Ombudsman. in turn. The Ombudsman deputies. is approved. the Ombudsman may refer cases involving non-military personnel for investigation by the MR. The military Ombudsman appeared for the first time in history in Norway in LIKEWISE BE APPOINTED. soldiers in the field. investigation and required the petitioners to file their counter-affidavits without the conduct of THE PRESIDENT: a preliminary evaluation of the complaint as required by the Rules. and shall notify the complainants of the action taken and the THE PRESIDENT: results thereof. MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT. 11. 1952 and in West Germany in 1956. DAVIDE: Sec. state prosecutor or lawyer in the placed on Section 6 because if we put it here. work in close cooperation with the On the contrary. page 3. Minister of National Defense and the Armed Forces of the Philippines' Chief of Staff because As previously established. the appointing authority will no longer be the government service to act as special investigator or prosecutor to assist in the investigation President but the Ombudsman. Commissioner Davide is recognized. separate Deputy for the military establishment may likewise be appointed. more or less. who shall have supervision and control of the said Office. Section 11 of R. of course. Accordingly. But I would propose that the wording would be: A SEPARATE DEPUTY FOR THE MILITARY III ESTABLISHMENT MAY BE APPOINTED. (Several Members In our own Philippine Armed Forces. Therefore. DAVIDE: who. grievance to higher authorities. nothing can prevent they know they can turn to a military Ombudsman for their complaints. In Norway. Those designated or deputized to assist him herein So it should also be covered by the manner by which an appointment may be extended to it. It should be his office and/or designate or deputize any fiscal. On the contrary. Article XI of the Constitution. may not have to fall Congress from giving the Ombudsman supervision and control over the Ombudsman's back on their own informal devices to obtain redress for their grievances. in any form or manner. one being the deputy for the military establishment. Sec. but it should not be on Section 11. Ordinary soldiers. xxx xxx xxx agencies or instrumentalities. please raise their hand. as grievance collectors and as mutual aid societies. So I would provided shall be under his supervision and control. OPLE: Deputy for Military Affairs. I think. Designation of Investigators and Prosecutors. May we ask Commissioner Davide to restate the amendment. The deliberations on the Deputy for the military establishment do not yield conclusive evidence that such The Ombudsman can designate a deputy to help the ordinary foot soldier get through with his deputy is prohibited from performing other functions or duties affecting non-military personnel. shall act promptly on the complaints filed. Madam President. establishment. Commissioner Davide is recognized. referral by the Acting Ombudsman of the Kuratong Baleleng case to respondent Casaclang MR. MR. and that is not. the philosophy of the provision. line 16. The Guardians. personally. a review of the relevant Constitutional provisions reveals otherwise. This deputy will. There is hereby created the independent Office of the Ombudsman to be known as Tanodbayan. when or duties"27 as Congress may prescribe through legislation. Madam President. in fact. officials or employees of the government. THE OMBUDSMAN MAY DESIGNATE A SEPARATE DEPUTY FOR THE May we have the amendment now as phrased by the Committee. Those in favor of this particular amendment. 28 In this light. just as it champions the common people against bureaucratic indifference. the Ombudsman "may exercise such other powers or perform such functions of the necessity to maintain the integrity of the chain of command. no irregularity attended the The Committee has no jurisdiction. I have no objection. 31.A. propose that it be transferred principally to Section 6. as amended. THE PRESIDENT: THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner has five minutes to explain his proposed amendment. OPLE: We do not share the petitioners' view that respondent Casaclang set the case for preliminary I accept the amendment. known VOTING as Ombudsmannen for forsvaret. Madam President. an xxx xxx xxx informal grievance machinery against injustices to the rank and file soldiery and perceive The results show 22 votes in favor and 11 against. of the Office of the Commissioner Ople has accepted the amendment. 26 Armed Forces Movement or RAM has kept precincts for pushing logistics to the field. the El Diablo and other organizations dominated by one overall Deputy and at least one Deputy each for Luzon. no evidence to that effect was adduced. They constitute. and prosecution of certain cases.) outside the chain of command proposing reformist objectives. against public We accept. MR. Structural Organization. created a panel of investigators. A enlisted men function. the Panel of Investigators . 6770 provides: the military authorities themselves. OPLE: MR. In these cases at bench. In the case before us. — The Ombudsman may utilize the personnel of I would have no objection to the proposed amendment. will help raise troop morale in accordance with a major professed goal of the President and No. MR. the proposed amendment. on line 61 page 3. 5. after "Mindanao" on Section 6.

This decision is 19 2 Record. unjust. 317-320. No. . "to take appropriate action against a public official .) The Ombudsman is also empowered to "direct the investigative authority. misfeasance. 16 Rollo. 22 Section 11(4). vol. — Upon evaluating the complaint. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN. and others involved in the prosecution of erring public officials. v. 23 The Provision reads. and SYLLABUS through the exertion of official pressure and influence. 90591.R. 265 (hereinafter 2 Record). 16. It was deemed necessary. Section 13. respondent Casaclang issued the questioned order. the office of the Deputy for the Armed Forces. 266. Bellosillo and Kapunan. therefore. SO ORDERED. . Concepcion. Id. is.. it may be 13 2 Record. 270-271. Special Prosecutor. reads as follows: 12 Id. wherein the Commission originally envisioned the adoption of the Sec. 15 Id.] act or omission of any public official" is broad enough to embrace any crime committed by a public official. 17 2 Record. . Regala & Cruz for Petitioner. JJ. in part: Hermosisima. (d) forward to the appropriate office or official for fact-finding investigation. . 268. The Ombudsman Act makes perfectly clear that MAY BE INVESTIGATED. the Office of inquiry. Since it was allegedly committed by the petitioner as omission of any public official . immediately executory. filed in any form or manner against public officials" (Sec. 3. 295. Rule II of Administrative Order 10 2 Record. Francisco Villa in contempt of court are DENIED for want of merit. Ombudsman in the 1987 Constitution and for the grant to it of broad investigative authority. provincial governor of Zambales. Office of the Ombudsman. ACT OR OMISSION THAT the performance of the duties of their office. any act or without any doubt. Evaluation. Petitioner. 231 SCRA 211 [1994]. THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTY. NOT REQUIRED TO BE RELATED TO." otherwise know as the Department 3 160 SCRA 31 [1988]. 7 Rollo. Jr. 14 2 Record. the Office of the Deputy for Luzon. (a) dismissed outright for want of palpable merit. — As protector of the people. 21 Section 15." (Sec. 5 Paragraph 1. Id. HON. to create a special office to investigate all criminal complaints against public officers regardless of whether or not the acts or omissions complained of are related to or arise from 1. Abello. (emphasis supplied) 1 160 SCRA 843 [1988]. 4 Supra note 1. Article XI. 1987 Constitution. 27 Paragraph 8. Ombudsman).A. POLITICAL LAW. 295-297 for a Longer disquisition on his thesis. the performance of official duty. the non-feasance that have been committed by any officer or employee as mentioned in Section office of the Ombudsman has the power. The murder of three persons. not a detailed Deputy. .. in his official or employee that the Ombudsman may investigate. It does not require that the act or capacity as Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon and PC/INP/CIS . (c) indorsed to the proper government office or agency which has jurisdiction over the case. and ARISE FROM. Asuncion. See also. 25 See Republic vs. 07 of the Office of the Ombudsman (Rules of Procedure of the Office of the 11 Id. 1630. . 402-403. and to recommend his prosecution" (Sec. on the process and nature of the evaluation required. 28 Section 5. or dismiss investigations into malfeasances and misfeasances committed by public officers. Costs against the petitioners. Sec. 26 2 Record. . 336. . the investigating officer shall recommend whether traditional Ombudsman as known in Europe. delay. submitted its evaluation report on 8 June 1995. "An Act Establishing the Philippine National Police Under a Reorganized Department of the 2 Rollo. 1990.. 24 Entitled. 20 Section 3. 1987 Constitution. 13 [3]). concur. Padilla. Sec. an illegal act. 264. No. OR the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses "all kinds of malfeasance. neither should we. 295-296. 8 Record of the Constitutional Commission. 6. the crime lies within the pale of the Ombudsman’s improper or inefficient. R. is to insulate said office from the long tentacles of officialdom that are able to penetrate judges’ and fiscals’ offices. 270. 2. 295. DOMINGO. Since the law does not distinguish. the Office of the Deputy for Visayas.. EN BANC officer concerned.D." in this case the Special Prosecutor. The reason for the creation of the Angara. CONNECTED WITH. The State shall establish and maintain one police force. P. 6770). The clause "any [illegal] [G. MANUEL C. 2. 12) and to "investigate . omission be related to or be connected with or arise from. when such act or omission appears to be illegal. Likewise. function and duty "to act promptly on complaints 13 hereof. Respondents. quash.. (e) referred for administrative adjudication. 274. Interior and Local Government and For Other Purposes. . the conduct of such evaluation involves the exercise of discretion which has the Deputy for Mindanao. (b) referred to respondent for comment. Section 2. 13 [1]. No. DELOSO. which shall be national in scope Footnotes and civilian in character. Article XI. — The Office of the Ombudsman shall include the Office of the overall It cannot be denied that the evaluation required is merely preliminary in nature and scope. . 6 Sections 10(e) and 17. The law does not qualify the nature of the illegal act or omission of the public GOVERNOR AMOR D. during his tenure of office" (Sec. The President may appoint the Deputies as the necessity for it may arise. and the Office of the not been shown to be abused in the instant case. PUBLIC OFFICE.. Section 13. 17-18. or 18 It provides: (f) subjected to a preliminary investigation. 284. is on leave. and 317. of the Interior and Local Government Act of 1990. 268. November 21. these two petitions and the motion to cite Acting Ombudsman as recommended by the Ombudsman. and it was only on 14 June 1995 that 9 Id. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING. 265-271..

OSP. and allegedly ambushed. ID. who. supposedly handpicked prosecutor Juan Templonuevo to conduct the preliminary The case began in the evening of April 22. Rollo. Governor Deloso jumped out of his car and took cover behind it. 3. 248. Et Al. Consequently. The Governor was charged with multiple murder before the 1989 (p. Gonzales. Zambales. For the same reason. Provincial Fiscal of Zambales." on the grounds that:chanrob1es original complaint earlier filed with RSJA. Revised Penal Code). on June 27. Pat Pedro independent. Deloso of Zambales seeks to stop incident. basketball victory party in Cabangan. that it was the group of Pat.. Don Dullas.. ID. 1988. CIC Leonito Bandala PC. it is cognizable by the ambushed by the group of Pat.S. when Governor Deloso attended a investigation of the case. the Tanodbayan (Special Prosecutor) has no jurisdiction to prosecute the murder case against the petitioner. but was the ambusher. 1) The Office of the Special Prosecutor has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. and honest investigative body. namely: Pat Warlito Quinto. Jr. On the other hand. On February 20. 49. Alex de Leon and Carlos preliminary investigation of the charge against him of multiple murder in IBP Case No. Sarito respondent Manuel C. the testimonies of additional witnesses. Cpl Elpidio Manding PC. he proceeded to a pre- wedding celebration in Danacbunga.com. like the Ombudsman. — The Ombudsman Based. Later. Dullas. Zambales. Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. and incident. J. virtual 1aw library "Relevantly. the convoy of three (3) motor vehicles.A. however. P. fearless. on the testimonies of eyewitnesses.ph Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officials when the penalty prescribed by law for the offense is higher than prision correccional (Sec. 2.com. it was established. Recom 3. Mario Dial. 88-100-1. Rollo). is greatest. on May 5. — were killed.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles. Crisostomo Diomino. docketed under I. Barangay Elections scheduled on 28 March 1989. Governor Deloso filed a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds April 23. Raul M. The above-named escorts were already charged of Multiple Murder before the Regional Staff Judge Advocate (RSJA).ph Special Prosecutor. on board his service car. was 2) The said office is without authority to conduct the preliminary investigation of the case. Ernesto Isidoro. the PC/INP/CIS investigators reported Act of 1989 which took effect on December 7. Said witnesses further DECISION identified the civilian escorts/companions of Governor Deloso at the time of the incident as Eto Epan. then riding in a Toyota Corolla car with Plate No.: "Follow-up investigation of this case further established the identities of the other military/police escorts of Governor Deloso who were also implicated in the said shooting By this petition for certiorari and prohibition Governor Amor D. Governor Deloso. Initial office. Jr.M. Jr. Jr. pursuant to PD 1850. Delfin Deliquina. the Botolan. these personalities had already been included as respondents in the 88-01770. he learned that 3) The preliminary investigation of Governor Deloso was prohibited by law in view of the three supposed ambushers — Patrolman Alberto Dullas. The report Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. He left Danacbunga at 1:30 A. ID. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate the murder charge against the petitioner and Araceli Dullas strongly inculpated Governor Amor Deloso of Zambales in the commission for its jurisdiction is confined to the investigation only of acts or omissions that are connected of the crime.. at about 1:30 o’clock in the morning. Botolan. with the governor’s car in the middle. and accompanied by his security force of that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library military/police/civilian escorts on board two other motor vehicles. or related to.. who were ambushed investigation of minor and less grave offenses arising from. particularly those of the spouses Honorio 1. 1988. along the Provincial Road of Danacbunga. His own group suffered no casualties." (pp. but would exclude those grave and terrible crimes that spring from abuses of official witnesses positively identified the military/police escorts of Governor Deloso as CIC Pacifico powers and prerogatives. Ramon Pangilinan. and Edgar Vinco. Sandiganbayan. CAG 419. for it is in the investigation of the latter where the need for an Uy. Dolojan INP and Pat Florante Dimaguibo INP. from conducting a Dedicatoria. VESTED WITH PRIMARY JURISDICTION OVER CASE COGNIZABLE BY THE SANDIGANBAYAN. who were. the Court issued a temporary restraining order on November 7. Domingo. entitled "PC/INP/CIS v. hence. Yabut. 1988. Indeed. without a referral from the Ombudsman. opted instead in submitting a nineteen (19) page photocopy of his letter dated May 30.. while his civilian security men were investigated by the Upon receipt of the petition.) 2. 4.. Regional Command (RECOM) No.com:chanrobles. subpar. 1988. numbering more or less fifteen (15). Governor Amor Deloso. Jr. The stated:jgc:chanrobles. Zambales. he was allegedly rushed home by his official staff. in the course of the investigation. Arthur Menes and Jaime Detona. R. The military servicemen in the Governor’s security force were charged with murder in the Judge Advocate General’s Office. 1989. 1988. 1988 to Justice Secretary Sedfrey Ordonez. he and his escorts were its maximum period to death (Art. 63-64. GRIÑO-AQUINO. While travelling on the barangay road a few kilometers from the venue of the pre-wedding celebration. 1989 (Sec. (c). Don Dullas and Edgar investigate erring public officials would be wasted if its jurisdiction were confined to the Vinco. From the party. MURDER CHARGE INCLUDED THEREIN.D. 1988. However. through labors of the constitutional commission that created the Ombudsman as a special body to the testimonies of eyewitnesses. No. Dennis Reyes. Alberto Dullas. when invited to give his version of the with the performance of his duties as governor. 15. . The murder charge against the petitioner carries the penalty of reclusion temporal in morning of April 23. the duties of public by the group of Governor Deloso and his escorts.. Cpl Cesar Madoh PC.. "This case was prefaced by the report of Governor Amor Deloso of Zambales that on the 1606). Jr. and the Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction to investigate it. During a lull in the shooting. 6770) vests in the that the Governor’s group was not ambushed. charged of the same offense before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Zambales on May 6.. likewise.

reiterating the grounds of his motion to dismiss. hence. and The Ombudsman Act of 1989 which took effect on December 7. Domingo. WHEREFORE.A. is to insulate said office from the long tentacles of officialdom office. during his tenure of office" (Sec. as protectors of the people. an illegal act. functions. Rollo) that are able to penetrate judges’ and fiscals’ offices. Rollo. or on complaint by any person.) Sandiganbayan and. 15. neither should we. functions and duties:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library improper. 8. The murder charge against the petitioner carries the penalty of reclusion Ombudsman to crimes related to or connected with an official’s discharge of his public temporal in its maximum period to death (Art. Since the law does not distinguish.com. Rollo. on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the government. The law does not qualify the nature of the illegal act Albeit reluctantly. and shall.) But he penalty prescribed by law for the offense is higher than prision correccional (Sec. (1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person. any crime committed by a public official. improper or inefficient. intended to limit the powers of the (c). by the petitioner as provincial governor. . respondent Manuel C. the office of the Ombudsman has the power. the performance of official duty. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the (Emphasis supplied. function and duty "to body to investigate erring public officials would be wasted if its jurisdiction were confined to act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials" (Sec.A. 12. notify the complainants of committed by the petitioner as provincial governor of Zambales." (p. or any subdivision. when such act or omission appears to be illegal. to create a special office to investigate all criminal complaints against public officers regardless of whether or not the acts or omissions After careful consideration. it may take over. Indeed. the official critic of public officials and the government mobilizer. The Ombudsman and his deputies. 9-10. the investigation of such cases. office or agency.ph "all kinds of malfeasance. 6770) duties:jgc:chanrobles. misfeasance.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary [3]). at any stage. or related to. the crime lies within the pale the action taken and the result thereof. 6770). from any investigatory agency of Government. therefore. 15. officers." (p. agency or instrumentality thereof. and non-feasance that have been committed by any officer or employee as mentioned in Section 13 hereof. pp. and honest investigative body.com." in this case the Special Prosecutor. "SEC. . unjust. office or agency. not require that the act or omission be related to or be connected with or arise from. issued virtual lawlibrary an order denying Governor Deloso’s motion to dismiss because "the Constitution empowers the Ombudsman to investigate any act or omission of any public official . subpar. the labors of the constitutional commission that created the Ombudsman as a special As protector of the people. the petition for certiorari and prohibition is dismissed for lack of merit. or inefficient. and through the exertion of official pressure and influence. P. The Ombudsman Act makes perfectly clear that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses Sections 12 and 13. is. Since it was allegedly owned or controlled corporations. like the Ombudsman. without any The reason for the creation of the Ombudsman in the 1987 Constitution and for the grant to it qualification that said act or omission must have been committed or incurred in relation to his of broad investigative authority. the lone issue presented by the petition is whether or not the cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. in appropriate cases." (p. .) Hence. the Court finds the petition to be without merit. shall act promptly R. . The murder of three persons. and the Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction to Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate the charge of multiple murder allegedly committed investigate it. complained of are related to or arise from the performance of the duties of their office. Functions and Duties. R. .) The Ombudsman is also official powers and prerogatives. and others involved in the prosecution of erring public officials. theorizes that "the framers of our Constitution . "(1) investigate on its own. 74. when such act or omission appears to be illegal. "SEC. 13 [1]. 16. After the denial of his motion for reconsideration. Special Prosecutor Gonzales referred the case to the or omission of the public official or employee that the Ombudsman may investigate. 1989 (Sec. 9. fearless. It does Ombudsman for preliminary investigation. 12) and the investigation of minor and less grave offenses arising from. employees. "to take independent. 1606). The office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers. any act or omission of any public "SEC. . unjust. the watchdog of the The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officials when the people. . or dismiss investigations into malfeasances and misfeasances committed by public for certiorari. It was deemed necessary." (p. Governor Deloso filed this petition delay. .ph vests in the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. Costs The clause "any [illegal] act or omission of any public official" is broad enough to embrace against the petitioner. Powers. — The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the official. Rollo. but would exclude those grave and terrible crimes that spring from abuses of appears to be illegal. in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction. and to recommend his prosecution" (Sec. when such act or omission public office. 13. Rollo. 248. any act or omission "x x x" of any public officer or employee." (Sec. Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. Article XI of the 1987 Constitution provide:jgc:chanrobles. The answer is yes. 4. . following powers. it may be imagined. is appropriate action against a public official .D."cralaw virtua1aw library of the Ombudsman’s investigative authority. the duties of to "investigate . without any doubt. Revised Penal Code). . 1989. improper or inefficient. 15. 13 greatest.chanrobles On June 19. unjust. quash. any act or omission of any public official . it is functions. for it is in the investigation of the latter where the need for an empowered to "direct the officer concerned. including government. .) The petitioner admits that "the office of the Ombudsman was created under the authority of the Constitution and was mandated to act as a champion of the citizens.

J. the filing of the original informations on 3 March Tanodbayan (caged Special Prosecutor under the 1987 constitution and who is supposed to 1987 and the amended ones on 4 June 1987. it is respectfully prayed that pending the final disposition of this petition or until further G. or on complaint by any person. The prayer reads: EN BANC WHEREFORE. in The Constitution likewise provides that: consequence." petitioner criminal informations for. G. relating to these cases as anullity and without legal effect. particularly.. in the meantime. 79690-79707. and the filing of the Motion for Suspension retain powers and duties NOT GIVEN to the Ombudsman) is clearly without authority to Pendente Lite. September 9. 79690-707 "Petition for Certiorari. 80578.Ombudsman" after 2 February 1987 relating to the investigation vs. Information consequent thereof-. Rollo) Tanodbayan Ombudsman) and can investigate and prosecute cases only upon the latter's . JJ. the void preliminary investigation he conducted in TBP CASE NO. 87-01304. C. the Special Prosecutor (Raul Gonzalez) is a mere subordinate of the (pp. and from conducting preliminary investigations in. it is respectfully prayed that pending the final disposition of this petition or until further comments of the Solicitor-General and of Tanodbayan Gonzalez as their Answers thereto. Feliciano. have already been filed. final judgment be Investigate on its own. Nos. (2) Prohibiting and restraining the respondent from filing any criminal Information as a consequence of The Solicitor General for respondent. Jr . 12159 to 12161. Zaldivar. respondent. he has been divested of such authority.L-Nos. 24-25. governor of the province of Antique.. ZALDIVAR. prohibiting and restraining the respondent Sandigan-bayan from proceeding to The existing Tanodbayan shall hereafter be known as the office of the Special Prosecutor. Philippines. Rollo) the present or incumbent Tanodbayan) who has the authority to file cases with the We issued the restraining orders prayed for. or inefficient (Sec. RAUL M. to consider the WHEREFORE. L-80578 April 27. No. It is likewise prayed that the present petition be consolidated with G.R. SO ORDERED. Sandiganbayan. Prohibition. inasmuch as the aforementioned duty is given to the Ombudsman.R.R. since under Manila. contemptexcept those conferred on the office of the Ombudsman created under this (2) declaring the acts of respondent Gonzalez as "Tanodbayan-Ombudsman" after 2 February 1987 Constitution. injunction permanent. GONZALEZ. Narvasa. the Ombudsman (as distinguished from theincumbent Tanodbayan) is 12177 insofar as petitioner Enrique A. in such amount as may be fixed by the Honorable Court. particularly. Republic of the Philippines In G. 1987. concur. it is only the Ombudsman (not (pp. Fernan. and the under the 1987 Constitution. unjust. Sarmiento. except upon orders of the Ombudsman. Cruz. Medialdea and Regalado. is on leave. the preliminary investigation conducted. petitioner Enrique A. J. for absolute want of jurisdiction. sought to restrain the be filed against petitioner with the Office of the respondent. such other complaints/ cases now pending or which may hereafter CLAIMING TO BE AND ACTING AS TANODBAYAN-OMBUDSMAN UNDER THE 1987 be filed against petitioner with the Office of the respondent. Lumba for petitioner. a writ of preliminary injunction issue upon the filing of a bond and to forthwith decide the petitions. on substantially the same ground as the first petition. 87-01304 and. such other complaints/cases now pending or which may hereafter Enrique A. 1988 After proper proceedings. February 2. The complete prayer of the petition reads: After a study of the petitions. 1987. (1) ordering that the amended informations in the above-mentioned crimininal cases be or issuing a writ improper. Gutierrez. petitioner... Bidin. a writ of preliminary injunction issue restraining the respondent ENRIQUE A. when such act or commission appears to be illegal. Gonzalez as "Tanodbayan. particularly: HON. respondents.R. PER CURIAM: (3) Prohibiting and restraining the respondent from conducting preliminary investigations in. criminal informations for. the promulgation of Now then. orders of the Honorable Court. and mandamus under Rule 65. XI. by respondent in TBP CASE NO. par. 13. CONSTITUTION. We have decided to give due course to the same. rendered: — employee. office or agency. Zaldivar is concerned and from hearing and resolving charged with the duty to: the special prosecutor's motion to suspend (Annex J) and thereafter. Section 7) (Emphasis ours). and filing In G. or annulling the criminal Information in the said case which may. claiming to be and acting as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman (1) Annulling.1987 the 1987 Constitution which took effect on February 2. 79690-707 April 27. restraining the Honorable We find the petitions impressed with merit. (Art. From that time. the incumbent Tanodbayan resolution of 5 February 1987. 87-01304. This right to do so was lost effective costs against the respondents. Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan Raul Gonzalez from proceeding with the prosecution and PETITIONER further prays for such other and further reliefs as may be deemed proper in the proper with hearing of Criminal Cases Nos. from filing the criminal vs. with Sandiganbayan. It shall hear and try the abovementioned criminal cases or making the temporary preliminary continue to function and exercise its powers as now or hereafter may be provided by law. cases were filed by said Tanodbayan without legal and constitutional authority. 1988 orders of this Honorable court. ZALDIVAR.R. Under the present Constitution. SUPREME COURT prays that Tanodbayan Gonzalez be restrained from conducting preliminary investigations Manila and similar cases with the Sandiganbayan. and 12163 to Under the 1987 Constitution. from further acting in TBP CASE NO. Resolution rendered. 45-47. and filing THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN AND HONORABLE RAUL M. GONZALEZ. Zaldivar. Gancayco. Manila. Nos. Francisco Carreon and Nestor C. November 18. No. it is prayed that final judgment be rendered annulling the acts of respondent ENRIQUE A. 12159 to 12161 and 12163-12177 on the ground thatsaid costs against the respondent. of complaints against petitioner. any act or omission of any public official. Paras. Sandiganbayan from hearing and trying Criminal Cases Nos. 1987. conduct preliminary investigations and to direct the filing of criminal cases with the PETITIONER prays for such other and further relief as may be deemed proper in the premises. Philippines. Melencio-Herrera. 1) of mandamus commanding and ordering the respondent Sandiganbayan to do so and. petitioner. Padilla.

R. No. JJ. The Special Prosecutor cannot plead that he has a right to Constitution took effect on February 11. who may. issue subpoena. consistent with my dissent in De Leon vs. authority or orders. that the 1987 two offices are Identical or similar. and Griño-Aquino.. Esguerra. The Office of the Ombudsman is a new creation under Article XI of the Constitution different from the Office SARMIENTO. Narvasa. 78059. for the fact is that he has never been the Ombudsman. G. Jr. retain it in the Spedal Prosecutor in connection with the cases he is ordered to investigate. concurring: of the Tanodbayan created under PD 1607 although concededly some of the powers of the I maintain.. (2) ORDER respondent Raul Gonzalez to cease and desist from conducting investigations and filing criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan or otherwise exercising the powers and function of the Ombudsman. Cruz.R. 1987. however. G. concur. The Special Prosecutor cannot initiate the prosecution of cases but can SO ORDERED. Paras. Gancayco. It is not correct either to suppose that the Special Prosecutor remains the Ombudsman as long as he Separate Opinions has not been replaced. Feliciano. however. No. Gutierrez. J. only conduct the same if instructed to do so by the Ombudsman.. C. Melencio-Herrera. however.. that the 1987 informations filed against him in the Sandiganbayan. 1987. Separate Opinions WHEREFORE. and Constitution took effect on February 11. which he still claims under Section 10(d) of PD 1630.J.. J. consistent with my dissent in De Leon vs. Fernan. Even his original power to Yap. hold over the position of Ombudsman as he has never held it in the first place. Esguerra. We hereby: SARMIENTO. is now deemed Bidin and Cortes. concurring: (1) GRANT the consolidated petitions filed by petitioner Zaldivar and hereby NULLIFY the criminal I maintain. transferred to the Ombudsman. 78059. . Padilla.