estoque

BIR V. OMBUDSMAN (2002)

G.R. No. 115103, April 11, 2002

FACTS:

Christopher S. Soquilon, Graft Investigation Officer received information from an “informer-for-reward” regarding allegedly anomalous grant of tax refunds. The Ombudsman issued a subpoena duces tecum to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Commissioner to appear before the Ombudsman and to bring the complete original case dockets of the refunds granted to Limtuaco and La Tondeña, but the BIR asked that it be excused from complying with the subpoena duces tecum because the Limtuaco case was under investigation and the investigation thereof and that of La Tondeña was mooted.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the actions of the Ombudsman are valid.
2. Whether or not Ombudsman violated due process.

RULING:

1.       Yes. In the 1987 Constitution enjoins 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 case, notify the complainants of the action taken and the result thereof.”

No requirement of a pending action before the Ombudsman could wield its investigative power.  The Ombudsman could resort to its investigative prerogative on its own or upon a complaint filed in any form or manner.  Even when the complaint is verbal or written, unsigned or unverified, the Ombudsman could, on its own, initiate the investigation.

2.       Yes. The law clearly provides that if there is a reasonable ground to investigate further, the investigator of the Office of the Ombudsman shall first furnish the respondent public officer or employee with a summary of the complaint and require him to submit a written answer within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt thereof. In the instant case, the BIR officials concerned were never furnished by the respondent with a summary of the complaint and were not given the opportunity to submit their counter-affidavits and controverting evidence. Instead, they were summarily ordered to appear before the Ombudsman and to produce the case dockets of the tax refunds granted to Limtuaco and La Tondeña. They are aggrieved in that, from the point of view of the respondent, they were already deemed probably guilty of granting anomalous tax refunds. Plainly, respondent Office of the Ombudsman failed to afford petitioner with the basics of due process in conducting its investigation.

UY  V.  SANDIGANBAYAN (1999)

G.R. No. 105965-70 09 August 1999

FACTS:

Petitioner George Uy was the deputy comptroller of the Philippine Navy designated to act on behalf of Captain Fernandez, the latter’s supervisor, on matters relating the activities of the Fiscal Control Branch. Six informations for Estafa through falsification of official documents and one information for violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 (anti-graft and corrupt practices act) were filed with the Sandiganbayan against the petitioner and 19 other accused for alleged. The petitioner was said to have signed a P.O. stating that the unit received 1,000 pieces of seal rings when in fact, only 100 were ordered. The Sandiganbayan recommended that the information be withdrawn against some of the accused after a comprehensive investigation. Petitioner filed a motion to quash contending that it is the Court Martial and not the Sandiganbayan which has jurisdiction over the offense charged or the person of the accused. Petitioner further contends that RA 1850 which provides for the jurisdiction of court martial should govern in this case.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the subject criminal cases or the person of the petitioner

RULING:

The fundamental rule is that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. Thus, Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the petitioner at the time of the filing of the information and as now prescribed by law.

RA 8249, the latest amendment of PD 1606 creating the Sandiganbayan provides that such will have jurisdiction over violations of RA 3019 of members of the Philippines Army and air force colonels, naval captains and all officers of higher rank. In the case at bar, while the petitioner is charged with violation of RA 3018, his position as Lieutenant Commander of the Philippine Navy is a rank lower than “naval captains and all officers of higher rank”. It must be noted that both the NATURE of the OFFENSE and the POSITION OCCUPIED BY THE ACCUSED are conditions SINE QUA NON before Sandiganbayan can validly take cognizance of the case. Thus, regular courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the person of the accused as provided by the Sandiganbayan Law which states that “in case where none of the accused is occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade 27 or higher, exclusive original jurisdiction shall be vested in the proper RTC, MTC, MCTC or METC pursuant to BP Blg. 129.Consequently, it is the RTC which has jurisdiction over the offense charged since under Section 9 of RA 3019, the commission of any violation of said law shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than Six years and One month to FIFTEEN years. The indictment of the petitioner therefore cannot fall within the jurisdiction of the MTC, METC or MCTC.

OMBUDSMAN V. VALERA (2005)

G.R. No. 164250, September 30, 2005

FACTS:

Respondent Valera was the Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs. He is in charge of the Revenue Collection Monitoring Group.

The Office of the Ombudsman received the Sworn Complaint filed charging respondent Valera with criminal offenses involving violation of various provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 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. Likewise subject of the same sworn complaint was respondent Valera’s brother-in-law Ariel Manongdo.

Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio issued the Order placing respondent Valera under preventive suspension for six months without pay. In the said order, petitioner Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio found that respondent Valera entered into the compromise agreement with Steel Asia Manufacturing Corporation without being duly authorized to do so by the Commissioner of Customs and without the approval of the Secretary of Finance.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio has the authority to place respondent Valera under preventive suspension.

RULING:

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.

R.A. No. 6770 granted to the Office of the Ombudsman prosecutorial functions and made the Office of the Special Prosecutor an organic component of the Office of the Ombudsman. As such, R.A. No. 6770 vests on the Office of the Special Prosecutor, under the supervision and control and upon the authority of the Ombudsman, the following powers:

(a)                 To conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal cases within the 
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

(b)                 To enter into plea bargaining agreement; and

(c)                 To perform such other duties assigned to it by the Ombudsman.

                The authority of the Office of the Special Prosecutor has been characterized as limited:

                Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman should not be equated with the limited authority of the Special Prosecutor under Section 11 of R.A. 6770. The Office of the Special Prosecutor is merely a component of the Office of the Ombudsman and may act only under the supervision and control and upon the authority of the Ombudsman. Its power to conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute is limited to criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Certainly, the lawmakers did not intend to confine the investigatory and prosecutory power of the Ombudsman to these types of cases. The Ombudsman is mandated by law to act on all complaints against officers and employees of the government and to enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants. To carry out this duty, the law allows him to utilize the personnel in his office and/or designate any fiscal, state prosecutor or lawyer in the government service to act as special investigator or prosecutor to assist in the investigation and prosecution of certain cases. Those designated or deputized to assist him work under his supervision and control. The law likewise allows him to direct the Special Prosecutor to prosecute cases outside the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction in accordance with Section 11(4c) of R.A. 6770.