Article 11. Accountability of Public Officers The Court, guided by its pronouncements in Jarque v. Ombudsman,17 In Re: Raul M.

e: Raul M. Gonzales18 and

Cuenco v. Fernan, has laid down the rule that an impeachable officer who is a member of the Bar cannot be
Section 1. Public Office disbarred without first being impeached.

Hipolito vs Mergas FACTS

A Complaint for disbarment was filed by Atty. Rodante D. Marcoleta (complainant) against respondents
Bornasal, Jr. vs Montes Commissioners Resurreccion Z. Borra (Borra) and Romeo A. Brawner (Brawner) of the Commission on
Elections (Comelec) charging them with violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Canons of Judicial
Almario vs Resus Ethics. Additionally, complainant charges respondents of violating Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
Juan vs People
During the 2007 National and Local Elections, the warring factions of complainant and Diogenes S. Osabel
Re; AWOL of Antonio Makalintal
(Osabel) each filed a separate list of nominees for the party-list group Alagad.
Estrella vs Sandiganbayan
With Alagad winning a seat in the House of Representatives, the two protagonists contested the right to
Malbas vs Blanco represent the party. By Omnibus Resolution 6 of July 18, 2007, the dispute was resolved by the Comelec’s
First Division in favor of Osabel. Commissioner Borra wrote the ponencia while Commissioner Brawner
Manaois vs Lemeo concurred.

RE; Gideon Alibang The dispute was elevated to the Comelec En Banc which, eventually affirmed Comelec’s First Division’s
Omnibus Resolution. Hence, arose the present complaint for disbarment.
ABAKADA vs Purisima
ISSUE(S)
Salumbides vs OMB
Whether or not, an impeachable commissioner of a constitutional commission be complaint for disbarment
Section 2. Officers Subject to Removal by Impeachment in the Supreme Court.

Impeachable Officer in a Quo Warranto Proceeding

RULING
Republic vs Sereno No. The Court, guided by its pronouncements in Jarque v. Ombudsman,17 In Re: Raul M. Gonzales18 and
Cuenco v. Fernan, has laid down the rule that an impeachable officer who is a member of the Bar cannot be
Section 3. Procedure for Impeachment disbarred without first being impeached.

In re Gonzales
The Court emphasized that the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary25 applies only to
Marcoleta vs Brawner courts of law, of which the Comelec is not, hence, sanctions pertaining to violations thereof are made
exclusively applicable to judges and justices in the judiciary, not to quasi-judicial officers like the Comelec
POINT OF THE CASE chairman and members, who have their own codes of conduct to steer them.
Romulo vs Ynigues
Francisco vs House of Representatives
Point of the Case: Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated, another may
not be filed against the same official within a one year period following Article XI,
Section 3(5) of the Constitution.
FACTS: On June 2, 2003, former President Joseph E. Estrada filed an impeachment
complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices of
the Supreme Court for “culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public
trust and other high crimes.” The House Committee on Justice ruled on October 13,
2003 that the first impeachment complaint was “sufficient in form,” but voted to
dismiss the same on October 22, 2003 for being insufficient in substance.
The following day, 23 October, the second impeachment complaint was filed with
the Secretary General of the House by House Representatives against Chief Justice
Hilario G. Davide, Jr., founded on the alleged results of the legislative inquiry
initiated by above-mentioned House Resolution. The second impeachment
complaint was accompanied by a “Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment”
signed by at least 1/3 of all the Members of the House of Representatives.
Various petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus were filed with the
Supreme Court against the House of Representatives, et. al., most of which petitions
contend that the filing of the second impeachment complaint is unconstitutional as
it violates the provision of Section 5 of Article XI of the Constitution that “no
impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than
once within a period of one year.”
ISSUE: Whether or not the second impeachment complaint is barred under Section
3(5) of Article XI of the Constitution.
RULING: Yes. It is barred within the one year prohibition provided in the
Constitution. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated, another may not
be filed against the same official within a one year period following Article XI,
Section 3(5) of the Constitution.
In the case at bar, the first impeachment complaint was filed on June 2, 2003 and
the second impeachment complaint on October 23, 2003 violates the constitutional
prohibition against the initiation of impeachment proceedings against the same
impeachable officer within a one-year period.
Estrada vs Desierto
FACTS:
Estrada was inaugurated as president of the Republic of the Philippines on June 30,
1998 with Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as his Vice President.
In October 2000, Ilocos Sur governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, a close friend of the
President, alleged that he had personally given Estrada money as payoff from jueteng
hidden in a bank account known as “Jose Velarde” – a grassroots-based numbers
game. Singson’s allegation also caused controversy across the nation, which
culminated in the House of Representatives’ filing of an impeachment case against
Estrada on November 13, 2000. House Speaker Manny Villar fast-tracked the
impeachment complaint. The impeachment suit was brought to the Senate and an
impeachment court was formed, with Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. as presiding
officer. Estrada, pleaded “not guilty”.
The exposé immediately ignited reactions of rage. On January 18, a crowd continued
to grow at EDSA, bolstered by students from private schools and left-wing
organizations. Activists from the group Bayan and Akbayan as well as lawyers of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and other bar associations joined in the thousands
of protesters.
On January 19, The Philippine National Police and the Armed Forces of the ISSUE:
Philippines also withdrew their support for Estrada and joined the crowd at EDSA
2.) Whether or not petitioner may invokeimmunity from suits.
Shrine.
HELD:
At 2:00pm, Estrada appeared on television for the first time since the beginning of the
protests and maintains that he will not resign. He said that he wanted the No, the Court held that petitioner is no longer entitled to absolute immunity
impeachment trial to continue, stressing that only a guilty verdict will remove him from suit. The Court added that, given the intent of the 1987 Constitution to breathe
from office. life to the policy that a public office is a public trust, the petitioner, as a non-sitting
President, cannot claim executive immunity for his alleged criminal acts
At 6:15pm, Estrada again appeared on television, calling for a snap presidential
committed while a sitting President. From the deliberations, the intent of the
election to be held concurrently with congressional and local elections on May 14,
framers is clear that the immunity of the president from suit is concurrent only
2001. He added that he will not run in this election.
with his tenure(the term during which the incumbent actually holds office) and not
OnJanuary 20, the Supreme Court declared that the seat of presidency was vacant, his term (time during which the officer may claim to hold the office as of right, and
saying that Estrada “constructively resigned his post”. Noon of the same day, Gloria fixes the interval after which the several incumbents shall succeed one another).
Macapagal-Arroyo took her oath of office in the presence of the crowd at EDSA,
becoming the 14th president of the Philippines.
Gutierrez vs Committee on Justice
At 2:00 pm, Estrada released a letter saying he had “strong and serious doubts about
the legality and constitutionality of her proclamation as president”, but saying he Section 4. Sandiganbayan
would give up his office to avoid being an obstacle to healing the nation. Estrada and Nunez vs Sandiganbayan
his family later left Malacañang Palace.
Lecaros vs Sandiganbayan
A heap of cases then succeeded Estrada’s leaving the palace, which he countered by
Cunanan vs Arceo
filing a peition for prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. It
sought to enjoin the respondent Ombudsman from “conducting any further Balmadrid vs Sandiganbayan
proceedings in cases filed against him not until his term as president ends. He also
Binay vs Sandiganbayan
prayed for judgment “confirming petitioner to be the lawful and incumbent President
of the Republic of the Philippines temporarily unable to discharge the duties of his Mayor Layus vs Sandiganbayan
office, and declaring respondent to have taken her oath as and to be holding the Abbot vs Mapayo
Office of the President, only in an acting capacity pursuant to the provisions of the
Defensor-Santiago
Constitution.”
Section 5. Ombudsman
Baluyot vs Holganza
Garcia vs Ombudsman
Lapid vs CA
Tirol vs COA
Mamburao vs Desierto
POINT OF THE CASE:
Ombudsman has the power to dismiss a case outright without conducting a prelimin
ary investigation. It is beyond the ambit of the court to review the exercise of
Discretion of the Ombudsman of its constitutionally mandated investigatory and
prosecutory powers.
FACTS: Petitioners applied for a P6 Million loan with the Balagtas branch of
Landbank of thePhilippines in order to finance the construction of a restaurant in
Bocaue, Bulacan. Upon knowing that the loan would be reduced to 3M because of
the re-appraisal ordered by new Gen. Manager Abella, petitioners withdrew their
application. Petitioners sought to re-apply for a loan at the Baliuag branch of the
LBP. Fernandez, beingthe head of the Northern and Central Luzon Banking Group,
ordered the rollback of theirapplication to the Provincial Lending Center headed by
Nanny Garcia.
Petitioners claim that when Messer went to Garcia’s office, she commented that she
will recommend the denial of their loan accusing Mamburao of establishing a front
for prostitution where the main merchandise are GROs. The application was
subsequently denied.Petitioners subsequently filed a charges against respondents
for slander, libel, falsification and use of falsified documents, and perjury. However,
the ombudsman dismissed their complaints.
ISSUE: WON the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing
petitioners’ complaints.
RULING:
No, the Ombudsman has the power to dismiss a case outright without conducting a 
preliminary investigation. It is beyond the ambit of the court to review the exercise
of Discretion of the Ombudsman of its constitutionally mandated investigatory and
prosecutory powers.
Carandang vs Desierto
Lacson vs ES
Point of the Case: Failure to show in the amended informations that the charge of
murder was intimately connected with the discharge of official functions of the
accused PNP officers, the offense charged in the subject criminal cases is plain
murder and, therefore, within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Court and not the Sandiganbayan.
FACTS: Petitioner Panfili Lacson was involved in a criminal case that started when
eleven persons, believed to be members of the Kuratong Baleleng Gang (KBG) were
killed by the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (ABRITG) where the
petitioner was one of the heads. Then, in a media expose, it was said that what
happened was a rub-out and not a shoot-out. Ombudsman Aniano Desierto formed
a panel of investigators to investigate the incident which later found out that it was
actually a police operation. However, a review board modified the panel’s finding
and recommended the indictment for multiple murder against twenty-six
respondents including herein petitioner, charged as principal, and herein petitioner-
intervenors, charged as accessories. After a reinvestigation, the Ombudsman filed
amended informations before the Sandiganbayan, where petitioner was charged
only as an accessory.
The accused filed separate motions questioning the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, asserting that under the amended informations, the cases fall
within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. They contend that the said law
limited the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to cases where one or more of the
“principal accused” are government officials with Salary Grade 27 or higher, or PNP
officials with rank of Chief Superintendent or higher.
Thus, they did not qualify under said requisites. Petitioner questions the
constitutionality of Section 4 of R.A. 8249, including Section 7 which provides that
the said law shall apply to all cases pending in any court over which trial has not
begun as of the approval hereof.
ISSUE: Whether or not the case falls within the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan
RULING: No. It does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Upon
examination of the amended information, there was no specific allegation of facts
that the shooting of the victim by the said principal accused was related to the
discharge of their official duties as police officers. Consequently, for failure to show
in the amended informations that the charge of murder was intimately connected
with the discharge of official functions of the accused PNP officers, the offense
charged in the subject criminal cases is plain murder and, therefore, within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and not the Sandiganbayan.
People vs Morales
Quarto vs Marcelo
Section 6. Appointments
Ombudsman vs CSC
Section 7. Tanodbayan as Special Prosecutor
Quimpo vs Tanodbayan
Zaldivar vs Sandiganbayan
Acop vs Ombudsman
Deloso vs Domingo
Almonte vs Vasquez
Azarcon vs Sandiganbayan
BIR vs Ombudsman
Laurel vs Desierto
Office of the Ombudsman vs Valera
POINT OF THE CASE
The Office of the Special Prosecutor is merely a component of the Office of the Ombudsman and may only
act under the supervision and control and upon authority of the Ombudsman. It bears stressing that the
power to place a public officer or employee under preventive suspension pending an investigation is
lodged only with theOmbudsman or the Deputy Ombudsmen.
FACTS:
On August 20, 2003, the Office of the Ombudsman received the Sworn Complaint charging Respondent
Valera with criminal offenses involving violation of various provisions of RA 3019, the Tariff and Customs
Code of the Philippines (TCCP), Executive Order No. 38, Executive Order No. 298 and R.A. No. 6713 as well
as administrative offenses of Grave Misconduct and Serious Irregularity in the Performance of Duty.
Meanwhile on November 12, 2003, the Ombudsman issued a Memorandum inhibiting himself from the
foregoing criminal cases as well as the related administrative case and directing petitioner Special
Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio to act in his (the Ombudsman’s) stead and place. Pursuant to the above
memorandum, petitioner Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio, in the administrative case OMB-C-A-0379-J,
issued the Order placing respondent Valera under preventive suspension for six months without pay.
Even before his motion for reconsideration was acted upon, however, respondent Valera already filed with
the Court of Appeals a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition as he sought to nullify Order of
preventive suspension issued by petitioner Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio. The appellate court rendered
the assailed Decision setting aside the Order of preventive suspension and directing petitioner Special
Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio to desist from taking any further action in OMB-C-A-03-0379-J. Hence, the
recourse to this Court by petitioners Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio and the Office of the Ombudsman.
ISSUE:
WON petitioner Ombudsman Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio has the authority to place respondent Valera
under preventive suspension.
RULING
No. The Court holds that the Special Prosecutor has no such authority.
The Court has consistently held that the Office of the Special Prosecutor is merely a component of the
Office of the Ombudsman and may only act under the supervision and control and upon authority of the
Ombudsman. It bears stressing that the power to place a public officer or employee under preventive
suspension pending an investigation is lodged only with theOmbudsman or the Deputy Ombudsmen.
Perez vs Sandiganbayan
Calingin vs Desierto
Point of the Case: R.A. No. 6770 provides that the Special Prosecutor has the power
and authority, under the supervision and control of the Ombudsman, to conduct
preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan
and perform such other duties assigned to him by the Ombudsman.
FACTS: Petitioner Antonio P. Calingin, a former mayor of Claveria, Misamis Oriental
undertook a low-cost housing project during his term. The members of the COA
Special Audit Team executed a Joint Affidavit filing criminal charges against Calingin
and other public officials. The Graft Investigation Officer recommended its filing but
upon review, the Special Prosecution recommended that the said Resolution be
disapproved and be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. Then Ombudsman
Aniano A. Desierto ruled in favor of the Resolution to file the case.
Consequently, 47 Informations for violation of Section 3 (e) and (h) of R.A. No. 3019
and Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code were filed with the Sandiganbayan against
Calingin and his co-accused. Upon reinvestigation, Special Prosecutor Norberto B.
Ruiz, in a resolution, recommended the dismissal of all the cases against all the
accused for lack of probable cause. However, in a Memorandum, the Chief of the
Office of Legal Affairs, reversed the Resolution and recommended that Calingin and
his co-accused be prosecuted. The Ombudsman approved the recommendation.
Hence, Calingin filed a petition for certiorari, contending that the Office of Legal
Affairs which recommended his prosecution has no authority to review the findings
and recommendation of the Office of the Special Prosecutor since the latter is not
subject to the control and supervision of the Ombudsman.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in disapproving the recommendation of the Office of
the Special Prosecutor to dismiss all the charges against the accused
RULING: No. The Office of the Special Prosecutor is but a mere subordinate of the
Ombudsman and is subject to his supervision and control.
R.A. No. 6770 provides that the Special Prosecutor has the power and authority,
under the supervision and control of the Ombudsman, to conduct preliminary
investigation and prosecute criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan and perform
such other duties assigned to him by the Ombudsman.
Clearly, in disapproving the recommendation of the Office of the Special Prosecutor
to dismiss all the charges against petitioner and his co-accused, respondent
Ombudsman did not act with grave abuse of discretion.
Section 12. Prompt Action on Complaints
Laurel vs Desierto
Facts: The Fact Finding Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman filed a
Complaint Affidavit against petitioners CARMELO F. LAZATIN, MARINO A. MORALES,
TEODORO L. DAVID, and ANGELITO A. PELYAO with Illegal Use of Public Funds.
The complaint alleged irregularities in the use of Congressman Lazatin of his
Countrywide Development Fund (CDF). Main reason: He was both the proponent and
implementer of the projects funded by CDF, signed the vouchers and supporting
documents pertinent to disbursement and he also was the one who received such. It
was alleged that petitioner, together with the help of Morales, David, and Pelayo was
able to convert his CDF into cash.
 After preliminary investigation, Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau the Office of the Ombudsman. Perez v. Sandiganbayan: the power to prosecute carries
(EPIB) recommended filing 14 counts of Malversation of Public Funds and violation of with it the power to authorize the filinf of informations, which power had not been
Section (e) of R.A.No. 3019. Said resolution was approved by Ombudsman, thus 28 delegated to the OSP.
Informations were filed against petitioners before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner
submitted reconsideration, it was granted by the Sandiganbayan who ordered
reinvestigation. Office of the Special Prosecutor’s (OSP) recommended dismissal for
lack or insufficiency of evidence. The Ombudsman however ordered the Office of the
Legal Affairs (OLA) to review the OSP resolution. OLA recommended to proceed with Almonte vs Vasquez
the trial. Ombudsman adopted OLA’s resolution. Uy vs Sandiganbayan
Petitioner’s main allegation is that the Ombudsman had no authority to overturn Raro vs Sandiganbayan
OSP’s resolution because of lack of authority to do so. They alleged that base on the
constitution, the Ombudsman and OSP are separate entities and thus the prior does Bautista vs Sandiganbayan
not have the power to overturn any decision made the latter. Second, checks were
Roxas vs Vasquez
issued to Lazatin as reimbursement for advances he made. Decision of lower
courts/CA:Directly filed with SC from Sandiganbayan/Ombudsman Kara-an vs Ombudsman

People vs Sandiganbayan

.Issue: Whether Ombudsman has the authority to overturn the OSP Laxina vs Ombudsman

Gemma P. Cabalit vs Commission on Audit-Region VII

Held : This Court held that giving the prosecutorial powers to the Ombudsman is in Gonzales III vs OP
accordance with the Constitution as paragraph 8, 13, Article IX provides that the
Section 13. Powers; Functions; Duties
Ombudsman shall “exercise with other functions or duties as may be provided by
law.” Thus, the Legislature passed R.A. No. 6770, which contains Section 3, placing the In General
OSP under the Ombudsman was upheld by this court. Section 7 of Article IX expressly
provides that the then existing Tanodbayan, to be Cruz vs Sandiganbayan

henceforth known as the Office of the Special prosecutor, “shall continue to function Maceda vs Vasquez
and exercise its powers as now or hereafter may be provided by law, except those Macalino vs Sandiganbayan
conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman created under this Constitution.” It
follows then that Congress may remove any of the Tanodbayan’s/Special Prosecutor’s GARCIA v MIRO
power or grant it other powers, except those powers conferred by the Constitution on
POINT OF THE CASE: The Court recognizes the importance of the complainant
submitting his affidavit and the affidavits of his witnesses. The reason is that after
the Ombudsman and his deputies have gathered evidence, their investigation
ceases to be general and exploratory, and the proceedings take on an adversarial
nature
FACTS: Petitioner Alvin B. Garcia, as then mayor of Cebu City, signed a contract with
F.E. Zuellig on May 7, 1998 essentially providing that F.E. Zuellig shall be the
exclusive supplier of asphalt for the citys asphalt batching plant for a period of three
years, from 1998 to 2001.
Newspaper accounts of the alleged anomalies on the subject contract started to
surface in the local media in March of 1999. Respondent Deputy Ombudsman then
required the Director of the Commission on Audit (COA) of Region VII to conduct a
special audit. In his report, Special Prosecution Officer Tagaan recommended that a
criminal and an administrative complaint be filed against petitioner Garcia and
several others. On June 21, 1999, Tagaan filed an affidavit with the Graft
Investigation Office against petitioner Garcia and others for violation of Section 3(g)
of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. On October 3,
2000, the Deputy Ombudsman issued an Order requiring petitioner Garcia to submit
his counter- affidavit pursuant to the conduct of a preliminary investigation. Garcia
failed to submit a counter affidavit thus, ombudsman proceeded with case based on
the evidences on record.
ISSUES: Whether the a COA report constitute a valid complaint that is sufficient to
support a criminal proceeding.
RULING: 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 filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of
Government.
Honasan II vs Panel of Investigating Prosecutors
Samson vs OMB
Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan
Point of the Case: The Ombudsman and his deputies, as protectors of the people,
shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials
or employees of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in
appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and the results
thereof
Facts: That, during the period from 13 May 1994 to 09 June 1997, or for some time
prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Manila, Metro Manila, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the aforementioned first two (2)
accused Antonio P. Belicena and Uldarico P. Andutan, Jr., both public officers, being
then the Assistant Secretary/Administrator, and Deputy Executive Director,
respectively, of the One Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit & Duty Drawback
Center, Department of Finance, Manila, while in the performance of their official
functions and acting with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, conspiring and
confederating with each other, together with accused Monico V. Jacob, Celso L.
Legarda, Abdulaziz F. Al-Khayyal, Apolinario G. Reyes, Reynaldo V. Campos and
Rafael S. Diaz, Jr., all officials of Petron Corporation, and Antonio H. Roman, Sr. and
Marialen C. Corpuz, both officers of Filsyn Corporation, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and (sic) recommend and criminally approve the transfer of the following
Tax Credit Certificates purportedly issued to Filsyn Corp.
Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan acted on grave abuse of its discretion?
Held: No, The Sandiganbayan did not act on grave abuse of its discretion. The Court
held that The Ombudsman and his deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act
promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or
employees of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in
appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and the results
thereof. (Section 12, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution)
The Ombudsman and his deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on POINT OF THE CASE: Local water districts are GOCCs, and not private corporations
complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the because local water districts do not derive their existence from the Corporation
Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including Code, but from Presidential Decree No. 198, 12  as amended. Thus, being a public
government-owned or controlled corporations, and enforce their administrative, officer, employees thereof can certainly be indicted for violation of Rep. Act No.
civil and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants in order to 3019.
promote efficient service by the government to the people. (Section 13, Republic
FACTS: In three Informations filed with the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City,
Act No. 6770)
Laguna, Branch 30, petitioner Engr. Roger F. Borja, in his capacity as General
Therefore, the petition was denied due course Manager C of the San Pablo Water District, was charged with violation of Section 3
(e) 4  of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Khan Jr. vs Ombudsman
Practices Act.
Ombudsman vs Estandarte
On January 13, 2003, Borja filed a Motion to Suspend Arraignment. Borja alleged
Ombudsman vs Lucero that there is a pending civil case entitled Feliciano v. Commission on Audit, docketed
before the Supreme Court, which involves the issue of whether local water districts
Ombudsman vs CA are private or government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs). He argued
Sangguniang Barangay vs Punong Barangay that the issue is a prejudicial question, the resolution of which determines whether
or not the criminal actions against him may proceed. If this Court resolves that local
Perez vs Sandiganbayan water districts are private corporations, the graft cases against him will not prosper
Buencamino vs CA since then he would not be a public officer covered by Rep. Act No. 3019.

Medina vs COA On February 18, 2003, the trial court denied the motion. Later it also denied his
motion for reconsideration. Aggrieved, Borja filed a petition for certiorari before the
Villas Nor vs Sandiganbayan Court of Appeals, which, however, dismissed his petition for lack of merit after
noting the previous cases wherein we held that local water districts are
Ombudsman vs Rodriguez
GOCCs. Borja sought reconsideration, but it was likewise denied. Hence, this
OMB vs Estendarte petition.

Salvador vs MAPA ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals err in ruling that there was no
prejudicial question warranting the suspension of the proceedings of the graft
OMB vs Masing
cases?
Medina vs COA
RULING: No. Borja’s contention that a prejudicial question exists in his case is clearly
BORJA v PEOPLE devoid of any legal basis, considering that it had been settled, long before
the Feliciano case, that local water districts are GOCCs, and not private
corporations. This is because local water districts do not derive their existence from
the Corporation Code, but from Presidential Decree No. 198, 12  as amended. Thus,
being a public officer, Borja can certainly be indicted for violation of Rep. Act No.
3019.
Preventive Suspension and Imposition of Penalties
Buenaseda vs Favier
Hagad vs Gozo-Dadole
Point of the Case: Section 24 of RA 6770 provided that the Ombudsman or his
Deputy may preventively suspend any officer or employee under his authority
pending an investigation. The preventive suspension shall continue until the case is
terminated by the Office of the Ombudsman but not more than six months, without
pay, except when the delay in the disposition of the case by the Office of the
Ombudsman is due to the fault, negligence or petition of the respondent.
FACTS: Criminal and administrative complaints were filed against Mayor Alfredo
Ouano, Vice-Mayor Paterno Cañete and Sangguniang Panlungsod Member Rafael
Mayol, all public officials of Mandaue City, by Mandaue City Councilors Magno B.
Dionson and Gaudiosa O. Bercede with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the
Visayas. The respondents were charged for having conspired to falsify Ordinance
018/92 by increasing the allocated appropriation therein from P3,494,364.57 to
P7,000,000.00 without authority from the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Mandaue
City.
The councilors moved for the preventive suspension of the officials which was
opposed by them on the ground that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the
case.
The Ombudsman denied the motion to dismiss and placed the officials under
preventive suspension. The officials filed for a writ of preliminary injunction and TRO
with the RTC. The judge ruled in favor of the officials, enjoining the enforcement of
the preventive suspension, hence this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Ombudsman has the authority to impose preventive
suspension to those officials under investigation
RULING: Yes. It has the authority. Section 24 of RA 6770 provided that the
Ombudsman or his Deputy may preventively suspend any officer or employee under
his authority pending an investigation. The preventive suspension shall continue
until the case is terminated by the Office of the Ombudsman but not more than six
months, without pay, except when the delay in the disposition of the case by the
Office of the Ombudsman is due to the fault, negligence or petition of the
respondent.
Also, no court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against the decision
or findings of the Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court, on pure question of law.
Thus, the questioned writ of preliminary injunction is annulled and set aside.
Vasquez vs Hobilla-Alinio
Point of the Case: The clause any [illegal] act or omission of any public official is
broad enough to embrace any crime committed by a public official. The law does not
qualify the nature of the illegal act or omission of the public official or employee
that the Ombudsman may investigate. It does not require that the act or omission
be related to or be connected with or arise from the performance of official duty.
Since the law does not distinguish, neither should we
Facts: The Petitioner Ombudsman filed a complaint against Judge Hobilla-ALinio for
granting the Motion to Quash Information for the crime of murder charges to Mayor
Luis Mondia Jr. of Pulupandan, Negros Occidental, Sgt. Ruben Olvido, Pat. Ernesto
Eneserio Jr., Jerry Vista, Joel Treyes, Rufino Zondia, Samson Mondia, Manny Mondia,
Norberto Espanola, Robinson Galanza and Noel Occena. On ground that the Office
of the Ombudsman had no authority to file the Informations in view of its own
finding that the crime was not committed by the accused in relation to their office.
The following day private respondents filed a motion to quash the Informations
based on lack of authority.
Issue: Whether or not then Ombudsman does not have authority over illegal act and
omission of any public official that are not related to its office.
Held: No, The Ombudsman has authority over illegal acts and omission of any public
official even if it is not related to his/her office.
The Court held that under Sec. 15, of RA 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989,
which provides:
complained of are related to or arise from the performance of the duties of their
office. The Ombudsman Act makes perfectly clear that the jurisdiction of the
Ombudsman encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance
that have been committed by any officer or employee as mentioned in Section 13
hereof, during his tenure of office (Sec. 16, R.A. 6770).
OMB vs CA
OMB vs Madriaga
OMB vs CA

Sec. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. - The Office of the Ombudsn shall have the Estorja vs Ranada
following powers, functions and duties: (1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or
OMV vs Lucero
on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee,
office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, Balbastro vs Junio
or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over case cognizable by the Sandiganbayan
and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from OMB vs CA
any investigatory agency of Fovernment, the I investigation of such cases. COA vs CA
As explained in the case of Deloso vs Domingo: The clause [illegal] act or omission of OMB vs Santiago
any public official; is broad enough to embrace any crime committed by a public
official. The law does not qualify the nature of the illegal act or omission of the Govenciong vs CA
public official or employee that the Ombudsman may investigate. It does not require Marahomsalic vs Cole
that the act or omission be related to or be connected with or arise from the
performance of official duty. Since the law does not distinguish, neither should we. OMB vs Lisondra

The reason for the creation of the Ombudsman in the 1987 Constitution and for the Miro vs Abugan
grant to it of broad investigative authority, is to insulate said office from the long
Cesa vs OMB
tentacles of officialdom that are able to penetrate judges' and fiscals'
offices, and others involved in the prosecution of erring public officials, and through OMB v DE SAHAGUN
the exertion of official pressure and influence, quash, delay, or dismiss investigations
POINT OF THE CASE: The Ombudsman has the constitutional power to directly
into malfeasances and misfeasances committed by public officers. It was deemed
remove from government service an erring public official other than a member of
necessary, therefore, to create a special office to investigate all criminal complaints
Congress and the Judiciary.
against public officers regardless of whether or not the acts or omissions
FACTS: On November 30, 1995, Intramuros Administrator Edda V. Henson was
dismissed from the service by the Office of the President upon recommendation of
the PGAC which found that the contracts with Brand Asia, Ltd. in 1992 and 1993
were entered into without the required public bidding and in violation of Section 3
(a) and (e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act.
On August 8, 1996, an anonymous complaint was filed with the Ombudsman against
the BAC in relation to the latter’s participation in the contracts with Brand Asia, Ltd.
for which Henson was dismissed from service.
 In an Order dated March 10, 2003, Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo held that there
was substantial evidence to hold respondents administratively liable since the
contracts awarded to Brand Asia, Ltd. failed to go through the required procedure
for public bidding under Executive Order No. 301 dated July 26, 1987. 
On appeal, the CA held that respondents may no longer be prosecuted since the
complaint was filed more than seven years after the imputed acts were committed
which was beyond the one year period provided for by Section 20 (5) of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 6770, otherwise known as The Ombudsman Act of 1989; and that the
nature of the function of the Ombudsman was purely recommendatory and it did
not have the power to penalize erring government officials and employees.
ISSUE: Whether the Ombudsman only has recommendatory, not punitive, powers
against erring government officials and employees.
RULING: No. In Estarija v. Ranada the Court hold that under Republic Act No. 6770
and the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman has the constitutional power to directly
remove from government service an erring public official other than a member of
Congress and the Judiciary.
OMB vs Samaniego
Boncalon vs OMB
Point of the Case: Under RA 6770 the Ombudsman has the power to directly impose
administrative penalty on public officials or employees.
FACTS: Loida C. Arabelo, the State Auditor II of Bago City, Negros Occidental,
conducted an audit on the cash accounts of Remia Boncalon, a Cashier IV at Bago
City Treasurer’s Office. The audit revealed a cash shortage of P1,023,829.56. The
state auditor also discovered that the entry in Boncalon’s cashbook pertaining to the
deposit of P1,019,535.21 on October 31, 1997 was false.
Boncalon denied the allegations contending that she was on a commuted leave
wherein she was cleared of money and property accountability. She also contended
that had the state auditor examined her safe, she would have found the bundles of
money worth P819,535.21, which she had overlooked.
Graft Investigation Officer (GIO) recommended the dismissal of the case since the
questioned amounts were already accounted for and that the erroneous entry of
deposit in Boncalon’s cashbook can only be considered as an administrative lapse,
subject only to the admonition of the erring public officer.
Upon review, the Office of the Ombudsman reversed the recommendation of GIO.
She ruled that the untimely deposit of the questioned amount only means that
Boncalon was in possession of the money and had made use of it. Further, her act of
falsifying an entry of deposit in her cashbook signifies want of integrity on her part
as she had the disposition to betray, cheat or defraud the government. Boncalon
sought reconsideration, but to no avail.
Thus, she appealed to the Court of Appeals.
CA affirmed the finding of the Office of the Ombudsman holding petitioner guilty of
dishonesty and meting the penalty of dismissal from government service with
forfeiture of all benefits and perpetual disqualification of holding public office.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Ombudsman is empowered to dismiss public officials and
employees in administrative cases.
RULING: Yes. It had been ruled that the power of the Ombudsman with regard to
imposing sanctions is not merely advisory but mandatory. Section 21 of RA 6770
vests in the Ombudsman disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive
officials of the Government, except impeachable officers, members of Congress, and
the Judiciary. And under Section 25 of RA 6770, the Ombudsman may impose in
administrative proceedings the penalty ranging from suspension without pay for
one year to dismissal with forfeiture of benefits.
Clearly, under RA 6770 the Ombudsman has the power to directly impose
administrative penalty on public officials or employees.
OMB v. Beltran
Point of the Case: The full administrative disciplinary authority of the Office of the
Ombudsman, including the power to impose the penalty of removal, suspension,
demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or employee found to be
at fault, is thus beyond contestation
Facts: The petitioner, Ombudsman filed a complaint against Court of Appeals
assailing on its decision which reversed and set aside the decision of the
Ombudsman dated 03 January 2002 dismissing Fernando Beltran from holding the
position in the Tricycle Regulatory Office of Paranaque City due to Grave
Misconduct.
The Court of Appeal opined that the Ombudsman had no authority to directly
dismiss Beltran from Government Service, as the Ombudsman could only
“recommend” the removal of the public official or employee who was found to be at
fault.
Issue: Whether or not the Ombudsman had no authority to directly dismiss a public
official from Government Service, as the Ombudsman could only “recommend” the
removal of the public official or employee who was found to be at fault?
Held: No, the Ombudsman has authority to directly dismiss a public official from
Government Service. In the case of Ledesma, The Court discarded the contention
that the power of the Ombudsman was only advisiory or recommendatory in
nature. The Court warned against the literal interpretation of Section 13(3), Article
XI of the Constitution which directs the Office of the Ombudsman to recommend to
the officer concerned the removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or
prosecution of any public official or employee at fault. According to the Court,
despite the term recommend, the said provision, construed together with the
pertinent provisions in Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6770, is not only advisory in nature
but is actually mandatory within the context of the law.
The Court further elucidated in Ledesma that by stating that the Ombudsman
recommends the action to be taken against the public official found to be at fault,
the provisions of the Constitution and in R.A. No. 6770 intended that the
implementation of the order be coursed through the proper officer. This is due to
the fact that the power of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute is not
exclusive but concurrent in respect of the offense charged. As such, this could not
be considered as usurpation of the authority of the head of office or any officer
concerned.
The Office of the Ombudsman, in the exercise of its administrative disciplinary
authority, is thus vested by the Constitution and R.A. No. 6770 with the power to
impose the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution
of a public officer or employee found to be at fault.
The charge of the Office of the Ombudsman is expressed in Section 12, Article XI of
the Constitution in this wise: Sec. 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as
protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or
manner against public officials or employees of the Government, or any subdivision,
agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action
taken and the result thereof.
Moreover, the provisions[27] in R.A. No. 6770 taken together reveal the manifest
intent of the lawmakers to bestow on the Office of the
Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority. These provisions cover the
entire gamut of administrative adjudication which entails the authority to, inter alia,
receive complaints, conduct investigations, hold hearings in accordance with its
rules of procedure, summon witnesses and require the production of documents,
place under preventive suspension public officers and employees pending an
investigation, determine the appropriate penalty imposable on erring public officers
or employees as warranted by the evidence, and, necessarily, impose the said
penalty.[28]

Hence, the full administrative disciplinary authority of the Office of the

Ombudsman, including the power to impose the penalty of removal, suspension,
demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or employee found to be
at fault, is thus beyond contestation.

OMB vs Apolonio

Jurisdiction over Criminal Cases

Natividad vs Felix

Lastimosa vs Vasquez

Presidential vs Desierto

Fact-Finding distinguished from Preliminary Investigation

Serapio vs Sandiganbayan

Section 15. Right to Recover Properties Unlawfully Acquired

Heirs of Gregorio Licaros vs SB

Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans vs OMB Desierto

Section 18. Allegiance of Public Officers

Caasi vs CA

Sampayan vs Daza