[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
51 views2 pages

Ramos v. Aquino

The Supreme Court ruled that allowing a provincial fiscal to investigate potential criminal liability for falsifying documents based on vouchers approved by the Auditor General does not encroach on the constitutional powers of the Auditor General. While the Auditor General has the power to audit accounts and expenditures, this does not preclude a separate investigation into possible criminal acts. The constitutional role of the Auditor General is to ensure legislative control over public funds by requiring appropriations, not to prevent any inquiry into whether crimes were committed in relation to approved documents. The lower court's order dismissing the petitioners' case was therefore affirmed.

Uploaded by

Cy Panganiban
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
51 views2 pages

Ramos v. Aquino

The Supreme Court ruled that allowing a provincial fiscal to investigate potential criminal liability for falsifying documents based on vouchers approved by the Auditor General does not encroach on the constitutional powers of the Auditor General. While the Auditor General has the power to audit accounts and expenditures, this does not preclude a separate investigation into possible criminal acts. The constitutional role of the Auditor General is to ensure legislative control over public funds by requiring appropriations, not to prevent any inquiry into whether crimes were committed in relation to approved documents. The lower court's order dismissing the petitioners' case was therefore affirmed.

Uploaded by

Cy Panganiban
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Digest Author: Roman Cyril Panganiban

Ramos v. Aquino
G.R. No. L-28594
Petitioners:
Respondents:

Ponente:
Date:

Edilberto M. Ramos, Paciano Capalongan, Victorino Reyes, Consorcia


Joven, Josefina, Coloma, Jose Joaquin
Hon. Benjamin H. Aquino, Provincial Fiscal, Pasig, Rizal, BRIG. GEN.
Romeo Espino, AFP, Commanding General, Philippine Army Fort
Bonifacio, Rizal,
Fernando, J.
June 30, 1971

Facts:
A constitutional question with an element of novelty is raised in this appeal from a lower
court order dismissing an action for certiorari and prohibition against the then respondent Fiscal
of Rizal, Benjamin H. Aquino, to prevent him from conducting a preliminary investigation. It is
whether there is an encroachment on the constitutional prerogatives of the Auditor General if,
after the final approval of certain vouchers by him without an appeal being made, an inquiry by a
provincial fiscal to determine whether criminal liability for malversation through falsification of
public, official and commercial documents based thereon could lawfully be conducted.

Issues / Ruling:
1. W/N the order of the lower court dismissing their motion and thus allowing their
investigation by cases Fiscal to proceed, did amount to an encroachment on the
constitutional prerogatives of the Auditor General.
No. It is lack of understanding of the constitutional provision relied upon. The Auditor
General, as noted, is vested with the power to examine, audit and settle all accounts
pertaining to the revenues and receipts from whatever source, and to audit, in accordance
with law and administrative regulations all expenditures of funds or property pertaining
to or held in trust by the government as well as the provinces or municipalities thereof.
There is failure on the part of appellants to appreciate correctly the constitutional
objective in the conferment of authority on the Auditor General. It is based on the
fundamental postulate that in the division of powers, the control over the purse remains
with the legislative branch. There is the explicit requirement then that there will be no
expenditure of public funds except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.

Decision: WHEREFORE, the appealed order of the lower court of December 20, 1967
dismissing the petitioners' action for certiorari and prohibition is affirmed. With costs against
petitioner-appellants.

You might also like