Garcia v. Miro, G.R. No.

148944, February 5, 2003

FACTS:

Petitioner, then mayor of Cebu City, entered into a three-year contract with F.E. Zuellig for the
city's supply of asphalt. Due to alleged anomalous purchase on subject contract, COA officials
conducted a special audit.

Thereafter, they submitted a Special Audit Report and joint affidavits for the purpose of initiating
a preliminary investigation before the Office of the Ombudsman. Respondent Deputy
Ombudsman ordered the petitioner to submit his counter affidavit, but the latter did not comply
and instead now seeks to restrain the criminal investigation before the Ombudsman.

Petitioner argued that the Ombudsman cannot compel him to file a counter affidavit because the
COA Special Audit Report and the other supporting affidavits of State Auditors do not constitute
a valid complaint that is sufficient to support a criminal proceeding.

ISSUE:

WON the Office of the Ombudsman may act promptly on complaints filed “in any form or
manner” against public officials / government employees.

HELD:

Yes.

Section 12, Article XI of the Constitution states that the Ombudsman and his Deputies, as
protectors of the people, shall act promptly on "complaints filled in any form or manner against
public officials or employees of Government.”

In this case, the complaint being referred to by petitioner is the complaint filed in court in a
criminal case. The SC ruled that for purposes of initiating a preliminary investigation before the
Office of the Ombudsman, a complaint "in any form or manner" is sufficient.

Hence, the joint affidavits submitted by State Auditors Cabreros and Quejada contain allegations
specific enough for petitioner to prepare his evidence and counter-arguments.