5/18/2020 G.R. Nos. 105965-70 March 20, 2001 - GEORGE UY v.

SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL : March 2001 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

March 2001 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Custom Search Jurisprudence
Search
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2001 > March 2001 Decisions > G.R.
Nos. 105965-70 March 20, 2001 - GEORGE UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL:
ChanRobles On-Line Bar
Review

EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. 105965-70. March 20, 2001.]

GEORGE UY, Petitioner, v. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, THE HON.

OMBUDSMAN AND THE HON. ROGER C. BERBANO, SR., SPECIAL
PROSECUTION OFFICER III, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR,
Respondents.

RESOLUTION

PUNO, J.:

Before the Court is the Motion for Further Clarification filed by Ombudsman Aniano A.
Desierto of the Court’s ruling in its decision dated August 9, 1999 and resolution
dated February 22, 2000 that the prosecutory power of the Ombudsman extends only
to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and that the Ombudsman has no authority
to prosecute cases falling within the jurisdiction of regular courts. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The Court stated in its decision dated August 9, 1999: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In this connection, it is the prosecutor, not the Ombudsman, who has the authority
to file the corresponding information/s against petitioner in the regional trial court.
The Ombudsman exercises prosecutorial powers only in cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan." cralaw virtua1aw library

It explained in the resolution of February 22, 2000 that: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=324 1/14
5/18/2020 G.R. Nos. 105965-70 March 20, 2001 - GEORGE UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL : March 2001 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

"(t)he clear import of such pronouncement is to recognize the authority of the State
and regular provincial and city prosecutors under the Department of Justice to have
control over prosecution of cases falling within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
The investigation and prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman relate to cases
rightfully falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan under Section 15 (1) of
R.A. 6770 ("An Act Providing for the Functional and Structural Organization of the
Office of the Ombudsman, and for other purposes") which vests upon the
Ombudsman" primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. . ."
And this is further buttressed by Section 11 (4a) of R.A. 6770 which emphasizes that
the Office of the Special Prosecutor shall have the power to "conduct preliminary
investigation and prosecute criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan." Thus, repeated references to the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction
clearly serve to limit the Ombudsman’s and Special Prosecutor’s authority to cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan." cralaw virtua1aw library

Seeking clarification of the foregoing ruling, respondent Ombudsman raises the

following points:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(1) The jurisdiction of the Honorable Sandiganbayan is not parallel to or equated

with the broader jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman;

(2) The phrase "primary jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman over cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan" is not a delimitation of its jurisdiction solely to
Sandiganbayan cases; and

(3) The authority of the Office of the Special Prosecutor to prosecute cases before the
Sandiganbayan cannot be confused with the broader investigatory and prosecutorial
powers of the Office of the Ombudsman." cralaw virtua1aw library

Thus, the matter that needs to be discussed herein is the scope of the power of the
Ombudsman to conduct preliminary investigation and the subsequent prosecution of
criminal offenses in the light of the provisions of the Ombudsman Act of 1989
(Republic Act [RA] 6770).

We held that the Ombudsman is clothed with authority to conduct preliminary

investigation and to prosecute all criminal cases involving public officers and
employees, not only those within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, but those
within the jurisdiction of the regular courts as well.

The authority of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute offenses committed by

public officers and employees is founded in Section 15 and Section 11 of RA 6770.
Section 15 vests the Ombudsman with the power to investigate and prosecute any
act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or
omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient, thus: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. — The Office of the Ombudsman shall
have the following powers, functions and duties: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or 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 or inefficient. It has primary
jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this
primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of
Government, the investigation of such cases;

x x x

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=324 2/14
5/18/2020 G.R. Nos. 105965-70 March 20, 2001 - GEORGE UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL : March 2001 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

Section 11 grants the Office of the Special Prosecutor, an organic component of the
Office of the Ombudsman under the latter’s supervision and control, the power to
conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal cases within the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan. It states: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 11. Structural Organization. — . . .

x x x

(3) The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall be composed of the Special Prosecutor
and his prosecution staff. The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall be an organic
component of the Office of the Ombudsman and shall be under the supervision and
control of the Ombudsman. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

(4) The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall, under the supervision and control and
upon authority of the Ombudsman, have the following powers: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

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

(b) To enter into plea bargaining agreements; and

SPONSORED SEARCHES

uy vs sandiganbayan case (c) To perform such other duties assigned to it by the Ombudsman." cralaw virtua1aw library

criminal law cases

The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is
supreme court plenary and unqualified. It pertains to any act or omission of any public officer or
employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or
civil and criminal court cases inefficient. The law does not make a distinction between cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan and those cognizable by regular courts. It has been held that the
chief executive o cer
clause "any illegal act or omission of any public official" is broad enough to embrace
any crime committed by a public officer or employee. 1
SPONSORED SEARCHES

uy vs sandiganbayan case
The reference made by RA 6770 to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan,

criminal law cases particularly in Section 15 (1) giving the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, and Section 11 (4) granting the Special Prosecutor
civil and criminal court cases the power to conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal cases within
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, should not be construed as confining the scope
chief executive o cer of the investigatory and prosecutory power of the Ombudsman to such cases.

administrative law judge

Section 15 of RA 6770 gives the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. The law defines such primary jurisdiction as
authorizing the Ombudsman "to take over, at any stage, from any investigatory
agency of the government, the investigation of such cases." The grant of this
authority does not necessarily imply the exclusion from its jurisdiction of cases
involving public officers and employees cognizable by other courts. The exercise by
the Ombudsman of his primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan is not incompatible with the discharge of his duty to investigate and
prosecute other offenses committed by public officers and employees. Indeed, it must
be stressed that the powers granted by the legislature to the Ombudsman are very
broad and encompass all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance
committed by public officers and employees during their tenure of office. 2

Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman should not be equated with
March-2001 Jurisprudence
the limited authority of the Special Prosecutor under Section 11 of RA 6770. The
Office of the Special Prosecutor is merely a component of the Office of the

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=324 3/14
5/18/2020 G.R. Nos. 105965-70 March 20, 2001 - GEORGE UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL : March 2001 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
Ombudsman and may only act under the supervision and control and upon authority
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1279 March of the Ombudsman. 3 Its power to conduct preliminary investigation and to prosecute
1, 2001 - ALICIA GONZALES- is limited to criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Certainly, the
DECANO v. ORLANDO ANA F. lawmakers did not intend to confine the investigatory and prosecutory power of the
SIAPNO 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
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1282 March administrative, civil and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants.
1, 2001 - SOFRONIO DAYOT v. 4 To carry out this duty, the law allows him to utilize the personnel of his office
RODOLFO B. GARCIA 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
G.R. No. 112092 March 1, of certain cases. Those designated or deputized to assist him work under his
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. supervision and control. 5 The law likewise allows him to direct the Special Prosecutor
ROBERT NUÑEZ to prosecute cases outside the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction in accordance with
Section 11 (4c) of RA 6770.
G.R. No. 123069 March 1,
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers and employees is one of the
PEDRO SASPA, ET AL. most important functions of the Ombudsman. In passing RA 6770, the Congress
deliberately endowed the Ombudsman with such power to make him a more active
G.R. No. 126019 March 1, and effective agent of the people in ensuring accountability in public office. 6 A review
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. of the development of our Ombudsman laws reveals this intent.
MARIO CALDONA
The concept of Ombudsman originated in Sweden in the early 19th century, referring
G.R. No. 131637 March 1, to an officer appointed by the legislature to handle the people’s grievances against
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. administrative and judicial actions. He was primarily tasked with receiving complaints
RODELIO PERALTA from persons aggrieved by administrative action or inaction, conducting investigation
thereon, and making recommendations to the appropriate administrative agency
G.R. No. 133888 March 1, based on his findings. He relied mainly on the power of persuasion and the high
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. prestige of the office to effect his recommendations. 7
ALFREDO NARDO
In this jurisdiction, several Ombudsman-like agencies were established by past
G.R. No. 134330 March 1, Presidents to serve as the people’s medium for airing grievances and seeking redress
2001 - ENRIQUE M. BELO, ET AL. against abuses and misconduct in the government. These offices were conceived with
v. PHIL. NATIONAL BANK, ET AL. the view of raising the standard in public service and ensuring integrity and efficiency
in the government. In May 1950, President Elpidio Quirino created the Integrity Board
G.R. Nos. 135667-70 March 1, charged with receiving complaints against public officials for acts of corruption,
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. dereliction of duty and irregularity in office, and conducting a thorough investigation
JESSIE VENTURA COLLADO of these complaints. The Integrity Board was succeeded by several other agencies
which performed basically the same functions of complaints-handling and
G.R. No. 138666 March 1, investigation. These were the Presidential Complaints and Action Commission under
2001 - ISABELO LORENZANA v. President Ramon Magsaysay, the Presidential Committee on Administration
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. Performance Efficiency under President Carlos Garcia, the Presidential Anti-Graft
Committee under President Diosdado Macapagal, and the Presidential Agency on
G.R. No. 140511 March 1, Reform and Government Operations and the Office of the Citizens Counselor, both
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. under President Ferdinand Marcos. It was observed, however, that these agencies
BALTAZAR AMION failed to realize their objective for they did not enjoy the political independence
necessary for the effective performance of their function as government critic.
G.R. No. 142313 March 1, Furthermore, their powers extended to no more than fact-finding and recommending.
2001 - MANUEL CHU, SR., ET AL. 8
v. BENELDA ESTATE DEV’T.
CORP. Thus, in the advent of the 1973 Constitution, the members of the Constitutional
Convention saw the need to constitutionalize the office of the Ombudsman, to give it
G.R. No. 142527 March 1, political independence and adequate powers to enforce its recommendations. 9 The
2001 - ARSENIO ALVAREZ v. 1973 Constitution mandated the legislature to create an office of the Ombudsman to
COMELEC, ET AL. be known as Tanodbayan. Its powers shall not be limited to receiving complaints and
making recommendations, but shall also include the filing and prosecution of criminal,
G.R. No. 144678 March 1, civil or administrative case before the appropriate body in case of failure of justice.
2001 - JAVIER E. ZACATE v. Section 6, Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution read: chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

COMELEC, ET AL.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=324 4/14
5/18/2020 G.R. Nos. 105965-70 March 20, 2001 - GEORGE UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL : March 2001 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
"SECTION 6. The Batasang Pambansa shall create an office of the Ombudsman, to be
G.R. Nos. 146710-15 & known as Tanodbayan, which shall receive and investigate complaints relative to
146738 March 2, 2001 - JOSEPH public office, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, make
E. ESTRADA v. ANIANO appropriate recommendations, and in case of failure of justice as defined by law, file
DESIERTO, ET AL. and prosecute the corresponding criminal, civil or administrative case before the
proper court or body." cralaw virtua1aw library

G.R. No. 113236 March 5,

2001 - FIRESTONE TIRE & Implementing this constitutional provision, President Marcos, on June 11, 1978,
RUBBER COMPANY OF THE PHIL. exercising his power under Proclamation 1081, enacted Presidential Decree (PD) 1487
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. creating the Office of the Ombudsman to be known as Tanodbayan. Its principal task
was to "investigate, on complaint, any administrative act 10 of any administrative
G.R. No. 113265 March 5, agency 11 including any government-owned or controlled corporation." 12 The
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. Tanodbayan also had the duty to file and prosecute the corresponding criminal, civil,
MANUEL PEREZ or administrative case before the Sandiganbayan or the proper court or body if he has
reason to believe that any public official, employee, or other person has acted in a
G.R. No. 118680 March 5, manner resulting in a failure of justice. 13 It should be noted, however, that the
2001 - MARIA ELENA RODRIGUEZ prosecution of cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan was to be
PEDROSA v. COURT OF APPEALS, done by the Tanodbayan through the Special Prosecutor who, according to PD 1486,
ET AL. 14 had the exclusive authority to conduct preliminary investigation, file information
for and prosecute cases within the jurisdiction of said court. The Special Prosecutor
G.R. No. 123788 March 5, was then under the control and supervision of the Secretary of Justice. 15
2001 - DOMINADOR DE GUZMAN
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. Shortly after its enactment, PD 1487 was amended by PD 1607 which took effect on
December 10, 1978. The amendatory law broadened the authority of the Tanodbayan
G.R. No. 124686 March 5, to investigate administrative acts of administrative agencies by authorizing it to
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. conduct an investigation on its own motion or initiative, even without a complaint
ROQUE ELLADO from any person. 16 The new law also expanded the prosecutory function of the
Tanodbayan by creating the Office of the Chief Special Prosecutor in the Office of the
G.R. No. 127158 March 5, Tanodbayan and placing under his direction and control the Special Prosecutor who
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. had the "exclusive authority to conduct preliminary investigation of all cases
JULIO HERIDA, ET AL. cognizable by the Sandiganbayan; to file informations therefor and to direct and
control the prosecution of said cases therein." 17 Thus, the law provided that if the
G.R. No. 132353 March 5, Tanodbayan has reason to believe that any public official, employee, or other person
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. has acted in a manner warranting criminal or disciplinary action or proceedings, he
ALFREDO IBO shall cause him to be investigated by the Office of the Chief Special Prosecutor who
shall file and prosecute the corresponding criminal or administrative case before the
G.R. No. 126557 March 6, Sandiganbayan or the proper court or before the proper administrative agency. 18
2001 - RAMON ALBERT v. CELSO
D. GANGAN On July 18, 1979, PD 1630 was enacted further amending PD 1487 and PD 1607. PD
1630 reorganized the Office of the Tanodbayan and transferred the powers previously
G.R. No. 138646 March 6, vested in the Special Prosecutor to the Tanodbayan himself. Thus, the Tanodbayan
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. was empowered to directly conduct preliminary investigation, file information and
JOMER CABANSAY prosecute cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and other courts. The
amendment gave the Tanodbayan the exclusive authority to conduct preliminary
G.R. No. 139518 March 6, investigation of all cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan; to file information
2001 - EVANGELINE L. PUZON v. therefor and to direct and control the prosecution of said cases. 19 Section 10 of PD
STA. LUCIA REALTY AND 1630 provided: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

DEVELOPMENT

"SECTION 10. Powers. — The Tanodbayan shall have the following powers: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

G.R. Nos. 140249 & 140363

March 6, 2001 - DANILO S. YAP
(a) He may investigate, on complaint by any person or on his own motion or
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
initiative, any administrative act whether amounting to any criminal offense or not of
any administrative agency including any government-owned or controlled
G.R. No. 140884 March 6,
corporation;
2001 - GELACIO P. GEMENTIZA v.
COMELEC, ET AL.
x x x

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=324 5/14
5/18/2020 G.R. Nos. 105965-70 March 20, 2001 - GEORGE UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL : March 2001 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
G.R. No. 143823 March 6, (e) If after preliminary investigation he finds a prima facie case, he may file the
2001 - JENNIFER ABRAHAM v. necessary information or complaint with the Sandiganbayan or any proper court or
NLRC, ET AL. administrative agency and prosecute the same." cralaw virtua1aw library

G.R. No. 126168 March 7, Section 18 further stated: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.

ANTONIO SAMUDIO
"SECTION 18. Prosecution of Public Personnel or Other Person. — If the Tanodbayan
has reason to believe that any public official, employee or other person has acted in a
G.R. No. 129594 March 7,
manner warranting criminal or disciplinary action or proceedings, he shall conduct the
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
necessary investigation and shall file and prosecute the corresponding criminal or
JUNNIFER LAURENTE
administrative case before the Sandiganbayan or the proper court or before the
proper administrative agency." cralaw virtua1aw library

G.R. No. 135945 March 7,

2001 - UNITED RESIDENTS OF
With the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, a new Office of the Ombudsman was
DOMINICAN HILL v. COMM. ON
created. The present Ombudsman, as protector of the people, is mandated to act
THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND
promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or
PROBLEMS
employees of the government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or controlled corporations, and to notify the
G.R. No. 136173 March 7,
complainants of the action taken and the result thereof. 20 He possesses the
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
following powers, functions and duties:
ERNESTO ICALLA
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

G.R. Nos. 137481-83 & "1. Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any

138455 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be

OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient; chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

SALADINO
2. Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or employee of the
G.R. Nos. 139962-66 March 7, Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as of any
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter, to perform and
EUGENIO MANGOMPIT expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent and correct any abuse
or impropriety in the performance of duties.
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1297 March
7, 2001 - JOSEFINA BANGCO v. 3. Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or
RODOLFO S. GATDULA employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure,
or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329 March
8, 2001 - HERMINIA BORJA- 4. Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such
MANZANO v. ROQUE R SANCHEZ limitations as may be provided by law, to furnish it with copies of documents relating
to contracts or transactions entered into by his office involving the disbursement or
G.R. No. 122611 March 8, use of public funds or properties, and report any irregularity to the Commission on
2001 - NAPOLEON H. GONZALES Audit for appropriate action.
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
5. Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the
G.R. No. 125901 March 8, discharge of its responsibilities, and to examine, if necessary, pertinent records and
2001 - EDGARDO A. TIJING, ET documents.
AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL. 6. Publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so warrant and
with due prudence.
G.R. No. 130378 March 8,
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. 7. Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and
ARNEL MATARO, ET AL. corruption in the Government and make recommendations for their elimination and
the observance of high standards of ethics and efficiency.
G.R. No. 134279 March 8,
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. 8. Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such
RICKY ROGER AUSTRIA functions or duties as may be provided by law." 21

G.R. Nos. 135234-38 March 8, As a new Office of the Ombudsman was established, the then existing Tanodbayan
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. became the Office of the Special Prosecutor which continued to function and exercise

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=324 6/14
5/18/2020 G.R. Nos. 105965-70 March 20, 2001 - GEORGE UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL : March 2001 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
ALEJANDRO GUNTANG its powers as provided by law, except those conferred on the Office of the
Ombudsman created under the 1987 Constitution. 22
G.R. No. 137649 March 8,
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. The frameworks for the Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the Special
RODOLFO VILLADARES Prosecutor were laid down by President Corazon Aquino in Executive Order (EO) 243
and EO 244, both passed on July 24, 1987.
G.R. No. 138137 March 8,
2001 - PERLA S. ZULUETA v. In September 1989, Congress passed RA 6770 providing for the functional and
ASIA BREWERY structural organization of the Office of the Ombudsman. As in the previous laws on
the Ombudsman, RA 6770 gave the present Ombudsman not only the duty to receive
G.R. No. 138774 March 8, and relay the people’s grievances, but also the duty to investigate and prosecute for
2001 - REGINA FRANCISCO, ET and in their behalf, civil, criminal and administrative offenses committed by
AL v. AIDA FRANCISCO-ALFONSO government officers and employees as embodied in Sections 15 and 11 of the law.

G.R. No. 140479 March 8, Clearly, the Philippine Ombudsman departs from the classical Ombudsman model
2001 - ROSENCOR DEVELOPMENT whose function is merely to receive and process the people’s complaints against
CORPORATION, ET AL. v. corrupt and abusive government personnel. The Philippine Ombudsman, as protector
PATERNO INQUING, ET AL. of the people, is armed with the power to prosecute erring public officers and
employees, giving him an active role in the enforcement of laws on anti-graft and
G.R. No. 140713 March 8, corrupt practices and such other offenses that may be committed by such officers and
2001 - ROSA YAP PARAS, ET AL. employees. The legislature has vested him with broad powers to enable him to
v. ISMAEL O. BALDADO implement his own actions. Recognizing the importance of this power, the Court
cannot derogate the same by limiting it only to cases cognizable by the
G.R. No. 112115 March 9, Sandiganbayan. It is apparent from the history and the language of the present law
2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. that the legislature intended such power to apply not only to cases within the
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but also those within the jurisdiction of regular
courts. The Court observed in the case of Republic v. Sandiganbayan : 23
G.R. Nos. 140619-24 March 9,
2001 - BENEDICTO E. KUIZON, "A perusal of the law originally creating the Office of the Ombudsman then (to be
ET AL. v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO known as the Tanodbayan), and the amendatory laws issued subsequent thereto will
show that, at its inception, the Office of the Ombudsman was already vested with the
G.R. No. 126099 March 12, power to investigate and prosecute civil and criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan
2001 - ROBERTO MITO v. COURT and even the regular courts.
OF APPEALS, ET AL.
x x x
G.R. No. 128372 March 12,
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
REMEGIO DELA PEÑA Presidential Decree No. 1630 was the existing law governing the then Tanodbayan
when Republic Act No. 6770 was enacted providing for the functional and structural
G.R. Nos. 130634-35 March organization of the present Office of the Ombudsman. This later law retained in the
12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. Ombudsman the power of the former Tanodbayan to investigate and prosecute on its
v. MANOLITO OYANIB own or 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,
G.R. No. 131889 March 12, improper or inefficient. . . . ." cralaw virtua1aw library

2001 - VIRGINIA O. GOCHAN, ET

AL. v. RICHARD G. YOUNG, ET Finally, it must be clarified that the authority of the Ombudsman to prosecute cases
AL. involving public officers and employees before the regular courts does not conflict
with the power of the regular prosecutors under the Department of Justice to control
G.R. No. 136738 March 12, and direct the prosecution of all criminal actions under Rule 110 of the Revised Rules
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. of Criminal Procedure. The Rules of Court must be read in conjunction with RA 6770
EFREN VALEZ which charged the Ombudsman with the duty to investigate and prosecute all illegal
acts and omissions of public officers and employees. The Court held in the case of
G.R. No. 137306 March 12, Sanchez v. Demetriou 24 that the power of the Ombudsman under Section 15 (1) of
2001 - VIRGINIA AVISADO, ET RA 6770 is not an exclusive authority but rather a shared or concurrent authority in
AL. v. AMOR RUMBAUA, ET AL. respect of the offense charged. Thus, Administrative Order No. 8 issued by the Office
of the Ombudsman provides: chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

G.R. Nos. 140011-16 March

12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
"The prosecution of case cognizable by the Sandiganbayan shall be under the direct

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=324 7/14
5/18/2020 G.R. Nos. 105965-70 March 20, 2001 - GEORGE UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL : March 2001 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
v. EUSTAQUIO MORATA exclusive control and supervision of the Office of the Ombudsman. In cases
cognizable by regular Courts, the control and supervision by the Office of the
A.M. No. P-01-1464 March 13, Ombudsman is only in Ombudsman cases in the sense defined (therein). 25 The law
2001 - SALVADOR O. BOOC v. recognizes a concurrence of jurisdiction between the Office of the Ombudsman and
MALAYO B. BANTUAS other investigative agencies of government in the prosecution of cases cognizable by
regular courts." cralaw virtua1aw library

G.R. No. 103073 March 13,

2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court’s ruling in its decision dated August 9, 1999 and its
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. resolution dated February 20, 2000 that the Ombudsman exercises prosecutorial
powers only in cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan is SET ASIDE.
G.R. No. 131530 March 13,
2001 - Y REALTY CORP. v. SO ORDERED.
SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Buena, Gonzaga-
G.R. No. 136594 March 13, Reyes, Ynares-Santiago and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
JOEL CANIEZO Kapunan, J., concurs in the result.

G.R. No. 139405 March 13, Quisumbing, J., is on leave.

2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
ARTURO F. PACIFICADOR Separate Opinions

A.M. No. RTJ-00-1530 March

14, 2001 - EDGARDO ALDAY, ET PARDO, J., dissenting: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

AL. v. ESCOLASTICO U. CRUZ

I am constrained to dissent. Our submission is that the Ombudsman exercises

G.R. Nos. 116001 & 123943
investigatory and prosecutorial powers only in cases cognizable by the
March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
Sandiganbayan in its original jurisdiction. The Constitution and the law did not create
PHIL. v. LUISITO GO
the office of Ombudsman to be a super prosecutor or fiscal of offenses committed by
public officers and employees. That is not the concept of an Ombudsman. His powers
G.R. No. 130209 March 14,
are only those expressly granted by the Constitution or the law, nothing more. We
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
explain why.
LARRY LAVAPIE, ET AL.

"The Constitution as well as RA 6770, 1 has endowed the Ombudsman with a wide
G.R. Nos. 130515 & 147090
latitude of investigatory and prosecutory powers virtually free from legislative,
March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
executive or judicial intervention" of offenses committed by public officers. 2 Thus,
PHIL. v. ANSELMO BARING
the Ombudsman "has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at
G.R. Nos. 134451-52 March
any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government, the investigation of such
14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
cases." 3
v. REYNALDO FRETA

"The powers, functions and duties of the Office of the Ombudsman are clearly
G.R. No. 137036 March 14,
provided in Section 13, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, as follows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.

HERNANDO DE MESA, ET AL.
"(1) [to] investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission
of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears
G.R. No. 138045 March 14,
to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
MARIETTA PATUNGAN, ET AL.
"(2) [to] direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or employee
of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as
G.R. No. 139300 March 14,
of any government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter, to perform
2001 - AMIGO MANUFACTURING
and expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any
v. CLUETT PEABODY CO.
abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties.

G.R. No. 102985 March 15,

"x x x
2001 - RUBEN BRAGA CURAZA v.
NLRC, ET AL.
"In line with the aforestated constitutional provisions, then President Corazon C.
Aquino signed Executive Order No. 244 limiting the Special Prosecutor’s authority,

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=324 8/14
5/18/2020 G.R. Nos. 105965-70 March 20, 2001 - GEORGE UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL : March 2001 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
G.R. No. 133480 March 15, thus: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.

FLORANTE AGUILUZ "Section 2 — The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall exercise powers presently
exercised by the Tanodbayan except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman
G.R. Nos. 135201-02 March under the Constitution.
15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. FLORENCIO FRANCISCO "Then, too, Section 17 of P. D. No. 1630 provides that: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

G.R. No. 141616 March 15,

"The Office of Tanodbayan (now, Office of the Special Prosecutor) shall have the
2001 - CITY OF QUEZON v.
exclusive authority to conduct preliminary investigation of all cases cognizable by the
LEXBER INCORPORATED
Sandiganbayan . . .;

G.R. No. 116847 March 16,

"Section 11, subparagraph 4 (c) of R.A. No. 6770, states that: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

2001 - MANUFACTURERS
BUILDING v. COURT OF APPEALS,
"The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall, under the supervision and control and
ET AL.
upon the authority of the Ombudsman, have the following powers: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

G.R. No. 128083 March 16,

2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. (a) To conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal cases within the

RODOLFO M. HILARIO jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan." 4

G.R. No. 128922 March 16, "It is confuted by relevant provisions of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (RA 6770) which

2001 - ELEUTERIA B. ALIABO, ET inter alia (1) confers on the Office of the Special Prosecutor — "an organic component

AL. v. ROGELIO L. CARAMPATAN, of the Office of the Ombudsman under the supervision and control of the

ET AL. Ombudsman" — the power to "conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute

criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan" (Sec. 11), and (2)

G.R. No. 129070 March 16, recognizes the primary jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman "over cases

2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and (its power) in the exercise of this primary

NELLIE CABAIS jurisdiction, to take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of
Government, the investigation of such cases" (Sec. 15). Moreover, pursuant to

G.R. No. 131544 March 16, Department Circular No. 50, dated November 6, 1991, jointly promulgated by

2001 - EPG CONSTRUCTION CO., Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez and Acting Secretary Silvestre Bello III of the

ET AL. v. GREGORIO R. VIGILAR Department of Justice, it is the Ombudsman’s responsibility and prerogative to
approve the resolution of the investigating prosecutor who conducts the preliminary

G.R. No. 135047 March 16, investigation of a crime cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, and to file the

2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. corresponding information with said court. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

RICARDO CACHOLA, ET AL.

"Also germane is Administrative Order No. 8 of the Ombudsman, dated November 8,
G.R. No. 137282 March 16, 1990, viz: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.

ALFREDO ALIPAR "For purposes of investigation and prosecution, Ombudsman cases involving criminal
offenses may be subdivided into two classes, to wit: (1) those cognizable by the
G.R. Nos. 137753-56 March Sandiganbayan, and (2) those falling under the jurisdiction of the regular courts, the
16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL difference between the two, aside, from the category of the courts wherein they are
v. NILO ARDON filed is on the authority to prosecute, such cases.

A.M. No. 01-1463 March 20, "The power to investigate or conduct a preliminary investigation in any Ombudsman
2001 - EVELYN ACUÑA v. case may be exercised by an investigator or prosecutor of the Office of the
RODOLFO A. ALCANTARA Ombudsman, or by any Provincial or City Prosecutor or their assistants, either in their
regular capacities or as deputized Ombudsman prosecutors.
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1306 March
20, 2001 - ROBERT M. VISBAL v. "The prosecution of cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan shall be under the direct
RODOLFO C. RAMOS exclusive control and supervision of the Office of the Ombudsman. In cases
cognizable by the regular courts, the control and supervision by the Office of the
A.M. No. P-97-1241 March 20, Ombudsman is only in Ombudsman cases in the sense defined above. The law
2001 - DINNA CASTILLO v. recognizes a concurrence of jurisdiction between the Office of the Ombudsman and
ZENAIDA C. BUENCILLO other investigation agencies of the government in the prosecution of the cases of the
government in the prosecution of cases cognizable by regular courts." 5

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=324 9/14
5/18/2020 G.R. Nos. 105965-70 March 20, 2001 - GEORGE UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL : March 2001 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
G.R. Nos. 105965-70 March
20, 2001 - GEORGE UY v. (1) The Ombudsman has exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigations, file
SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL and prosecute criminal cases falling within the original jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
G.R. No. 108991 March 20,
2001 - WILLIAM ALAIN MIAILHE "The Office of the Ombudsman has the sole power to ‘investigate and prosecute on its
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. own or 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,
G.R. No. 130663 March 20, improper or inefficient." ‘ 6 The Special Prosecutor, "an organic component of the
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. office of the Ombudsman . . . under the supervision and control of the Ombudsman, 7
ANGELES STA. TERESA has the power to conduct preliminary investigation, file and prosecute cases within
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. 8
G.R. Nos. 136862-63 March
20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. In Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, 9 the Court held that it is the Ombudsman and no
v. ROLANDO SANTOS other who has the right to conduct preliminary investigations and direct the filing of
criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan. The prosecution may be undertaken by the
G.R. Nos. 139413-15 March Office of the Special Prosecutor, under the supervision and control of the
20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. Ombudsman.
v. ENDRICO GALAS
Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, 10 the Ombudsman has authority to
G.R. No. 140356 March 20, conduct preliminary investigation of all cases and approve the filing of complaint or
2001 - DOLORES FAJARDO v. information cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. jurisdiction. 11

G.R. No. 140919 March 20, (2) The power of the Ombudsman to investigate cases cognizable by the regular
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. courts is shared with public prosecutors.
BUTCH BUCAO LEE
The Ombudsman may investigate criminal cases involving public officials regardless of
G.R. No. 142476 March 20, whether the cases fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan or the regular
2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. courts. He may, however, not directly file informations with the regular courts. He
SANDIGANBAYAN must refer the result of his preliminary investigation to the proper city or provincial
prosecutor or chief state prosecutor for the filing of the proper information with the
G.R. No. 144074 March 20, regular courts. 12
2001 - MEDINA INVESTIGATION
& SECURITY CORP., ET AL. v. (3) The Ombudsman’s power to prosecute is limited to all cases cognizable by the
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. Sandiganbayan. In cases filed with or cognizable by the regular courts, even so called
"Ombudsman cases", 13 only public prosecutors have the express power to prosecute
G.R. No. 127772 March 22, such cases.
2001 - ROBERTO P. ALMARIO v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. Generalia specialibus non derogant. — Where there is a particular or special provision
in the statute and also a general one, the special provision prevails in the sense that
G.R. Nos. 133815-17 March the general provisions cannot derogate from the special. 14 Thus, we construe R. A.
22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. 6770, the Ombudsman law. The Ombudsman shall investigate and prosecute on its
v. EDGARDO LIAD, ET AL. own or on complaint by any person, any illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient act or
omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency over cases within the
G.R. No. 134972 March 22, original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
2001 - ERNESTO CATUNGAL, ET
AL. v. DORIS HAO This way, every word contained in Sec. 15, R. A. 6770, is given effect. It is a "well-
established rule in legal hermeneutics that in interpreting a statute, care should be
A.M. No. P-01-1469 March 26, taken that every part or word thereof be given effect since the lawmaking body is
2001 - ROEL O. PARAS v. MYRNA presumed to know the meaning of the words employed in the statute and to have
F. LOFRANCO used them advisedly." 15 The meaning of any law is not to be extracted from any
single part or from an isolated clause or sentence. There must be a general
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1624 March consideration of the act as a whole. Every part of the statute must be considered
26, 2001 - REQUEST FOR together and kept subservient to the general intent of the enactment, not separately
ASSISTANCE RELATIVE TO and independently. 16 The cardinal rule in statutory construction is "that the
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS NO. 28 particular words, clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated
expressions, but the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=324 10/14
5/18/2020 G.R. Nos. 105965-70 March 20, 2001 - GEORGE UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL : March 2001 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
A.M. No. 99-731-RTJ March the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce a harmonious whole. A
26, 2001 - HILARIO DE GUZMAN statute must be so construed as to harmonize and give effect to all its provisions
v. DEODORO J. SISON whenever possible." 17

G.R. Nos. 102407-08 March Under the Article XI, Section 13 of the Constitution, the powers of the Office of the
26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. Ombudsman can be categorized as investigatory, directory and recommendatory. The
v. EDMUNDO LUCERO power to investigate includes only the power to conduct "an inquiry, judicial or
otherwise, for the discovery and collection of facts concerning the matter or matters
G.R. No. 121608 March 26, involved." 18 The power to direct involves the power to "guide, order, command or
2001 - FLEISCHER COMPANY v. instruct." 19 The power to recommend includes the power to give "advice,
NLRC, ET AL. exhortation or indorsement, which is essentially persuasive in character, not binding
upon the party to whom it is made." 20 This grant of powers by the Constitution is
G.R. No. 121902 March 26, consistent with the function of an "Ombudsman," to wit: "It is an independent, high
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. level officer who receives complaints, who pursues inquiries into the matters involved
WALTER MELENCION and who makes recommendations for suitable action. He makes periodic reports. His
remedial weapons are persuasion, criticism and publicity." 21" [B]eholden to no one,
G.R. No. 125865 March 26, [he] acts as the champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of public
2001 - JEFFREY LIANG v. PEOPLE service." 22
OF THE PHIL.
However, the grant of power outside the essential powers prescribed in the
G.R. No. 129916 March 26, Constitution (i.e. investigatory, directory and recommendatory) must be express and
2001 - MAGELLAN CAPITAL strictly construed. 23 Thus, the power to prosecute cases cognizable by regular courts
MNGT. CORP., ET AL. v. can not be implied. When a power is not essential to the accomplishment of the
ROLANDO M. ZOSA, ET AL. principal purposes for which that power was created, it cannot be granted by
implication. 24
G.R. Nos. 131638-39 March
26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. We note that the while the Ombudsman law 25 grants the Ombudsman the power to
v. LORETO MEDENILLA prosecute criminal cases within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, it is
silent as to whether the Ombudsman can prosecute cases within the jurisdiction of
G.R. No. 131653 March 26, the regular courts. The Ombudsman law expressly identifies the Sandiganbayan as
2001 - ROBERTO GONZALES v. the venue where it can exercise prosecutorial powers of cases involving public officers
NLRC, ET AL within its original jurisdiction.
chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

G.R. No. 133475 March 26, Clearly then, the Ombudsman does not have the power to prosecute criminal cases
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. within the original jurisdiction of the regular courts. In all cases elevated to the
ERNESTO MONTEJO Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Office of the
Ombudsman, through its special prosecutor, shall represent the People of the
G.R. No. 134903 March 26, Philippines, except in cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A,
2001 - UNICRAFT INDUSTRIES issued in 1986. 26
INTERNATIONAL CORP., ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. IN VIEW WHEREOF, I vote to DENY the Ombudsman’s "Motion For Leave to Admit
Motion for Further Clarification." cralaw virtua1aw library

G.R. No. 136790 March 26,

2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
De Leon, Jr., J., dissent.
MANUEL GALVEZ

G.R. No. 137268 March 26, Endnotes:

2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
EUTIQUIA CARMEN, ET AL.
1. Deloso v. Domingo, 191 SCRA 545 (1990).

G.R. No. 137590 March 26,

2001 - FLORENCE MALCAMPO- 2. Section 16, RA 6770.

SIN v. PHILIPP T. SIN

3. Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, 160 SCRA 843 (1988); Acop v. Office of the

G.R. No. 137739 March 26, Ombudsman, 248 SCRA 566 (1995).

2001 - ROBERTO B. TAN v. PHIL.

BANKING CORP., ET AL. 4. Section 13, RA 6770.

5. Section 31, RA 6770; Lastimosa v. Vasquez, 243 SCRA 497 (1995).

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=324 11/14
5/18/2020 G.R. Nos. 105965-70 March 20, 2001 - GEORGE UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL : March 2001 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
G.R. No. 137889 March 26,
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. 6. Sponsorship Speech of Senator Edgardo Angara, Senate Bill 543, June
ROMEO DELOS SANTOS 8, 1988.

G.R. No. 142950 March 26, 7. Rowat, The Ombudsman Plan. Essays on the Worldwide Spread of an
2001 - EQUITABLE PCI BANK v. Idea (1973).
ROSITA KU
8. Cortes, Redress of Grievances and the Philippine Ombudsman
G.R. Nos. 147066 & 147179 (Tanodbayan), Philippine Law Journal, vol. 57, March 1982, pp. 1-24.
March 26, 2001 - AKBAYAN -
Youth, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET 9. Tuason, A Commitment to Official Integrity (Background, Rationale and
AL. Explanation of Article XIII, Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan), Philippine
Law Journal, vol. 48, nos. 4 & 5, September and December 1973, pp. 548-
A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA March 626.
27, 2001 - IN RE: DEMETRIO G.
DEMETRIA 10. The law defined "administrative act" as "any action including
decisions, omissions, recommendations, practices, or procedures of an
A.M. No. P-01-1473 March 27, administrative agency." (Section 9[b], PD 1487).
2001 - GLORIA O. BENITEZ v.
MEDEL P. ACOSTA 11. The law defined "administrative agency" as "any department or other
governmental unit including any government-owned or controlled
G.R. No. 123149 March 27, corporation, any official, or any employee acting or purporting to act by
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. reason of connection with the government but it does not include (1) any
CORNELIO CABUG court or judge, or appurtenant judicial staff, (2) the members,
committees, or staffs of the National Assembly, or (3) the President or his
G.R. No. 131588 March 27, personal staff, or (4) the members of the Constitutional Commissions and
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. their personal staffs." (Section 9[a], PD 1487).
GLENN DE LOS SANTOS
12. Section 10 (a), PD 1487.
G.R. Nos. 137762-65 March
27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. 13. Section 17, id.
v. REYNALDO BARES
14. Creating a Special Court to be known as "Sandiganbayan" and for
G.R. No. 137989 March 27, other Purposes.
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
SONNY MATIONG, ET AL. 15. Section 12, PD 1486.

A.M. No. MTJ-01-1357 March 16. Section 10 (a), PD 1607.

28, 2001 - MONFORT HERMANOS
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 17. Section 17, id.
CORP. v. ROLANDO V. RAMIREZ
18. Section 19, id.
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1574 March
28, 2001 - GORGONIO S. NOVA 19. Section 17, PD 1630.
v. SANCHO DAMES II
20. Section 12, Article XI, 1987 Constitution.
G.R. No. 100701 March 28,
2001 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE 21. Section 13, id.
PHIL. v. NLRC, ET AL.
22. Section 7, id.
G.R. No. 101442 March 28,
2001 - JOSE ANGELES v. COURT 23. 200 SCRA 667 (1991).
OF APPEALS, ET AL
24. 227 SCRA 627 (1993).
G.R. No. 110012 March 28,
2001 - ANASTACIO VICTORIO v. 25. A complaint filed or taken cognizance of by the Office of the
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. Ombudsman charging any public officer or employee including those in
government owned or controlled corporations with an act or omission

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=324 12/14
5/18/2020 G.R. Nos. 105965-70 March 20, 2001 - GEORGE UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL : March 2001 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
G.R. No. 112314 March 28, alleged to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient is an Ombudsman
2001 - VICENTE R. MADARANG v. case.
SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.
PARDO, J., dissenting: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

G.R. No. 117964 March 28,

2001 - PLACIDO O. URBANES, JR. 1. An Act Providing for the Functional and Structural Organization of the
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. Office of the Ombudsman.

G.R. No. 122216 March 28, 2. Espinosa v. Ombudsman, G. R. No. 135775, October 19, 2000.
2001 - ALJEM’S CORPORATION v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. 3. R. A. 6770, Section 15.

G.R. No. 126751 March 28, 4. Velasco v. Hon. Casaclang, 355 Phil. 815, 828-829 [1998].
2001 - SAFIC ALCAN & CIE v.
IMPERIAL VEGETABLE OIL CO. 5. Quiñon v. Sandiganbayan, 338 Phil. 290, 303-304 [1997].

G.R. No. 126959 March 28, 6. Espinosa v. Ombudsman, supra, Note 2.

2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
SERVANDO SATURNO, ET AL. 7. Quiñon v. Sandiganbayan, supra, Note 5, p. 303.

G.R. No. 136965 March 28, 8. R A. 6770, Section 11(4) (a); Quiñon v. Sandiganbayan, supra, Note 5.
2001 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHIL.
v. SEGUNDINA ROSARIO 9. 160 SCRA 843 [1988].

G.R. No. 137660 March 28, 10. Effective December 1, 2000.

2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
CARLOS L. ALCANTARA 11. Rule 112, Sec. 4, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

G.R. No. 137932 March 28, 12. R. A. No. 6770, Sec. 15 (3).
2001 - CHIANG YIA MIN v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. 13. "Ombudsman cases" are those cases cognizable by the regular courts,
not falling under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but which involves
G.R. No. 138474 March 28, "any act or omission of any public official, employees, office or agency,
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or
FORTUNATO BALANO inefficient." (R A. 6770, Sec. 15 [1]) Under Administrative Order No. 8,
dated November 8, 1990 of the Office of the Ombudsman, "For purposes
G.R. Nos. 139571-72 March of investigation and prosecution, Ombudsman cases involving criminal
28, 2001 - ROGER N. ABARDO v. offenses may be subdivided into two classes, to wit: those cognizable by
SANDIGANBAYAN the Sandiganbayan, and (2) those falling under the jurisdiction of the
regular courts." (Gozos v. Tac-an, 300 SCRA 265, 275 [1998]).
G.R. No. 140153 March 28,
2001 - ANTONIO DOCENA, ET AL. 14. Lichauco v. Apostol, 44 Phil. 138 [1922]; Manila Railroad Co. v.
v. RICARDO P. LAPESURA, ET AL. Collector of Customs, 52 Phil. 950 [1929].

G.R. No. 141307 March 28, 15. Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
2001 - PURTO J. NAVARRO, ET Commission, 313 SCRA 88, 90 [1999], citing Aparri v. Court of Appeals,
AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET 127 SCRA 231, 241 [1984].
AL.

16. Tamayo v. Gsell, 35 Phil. 953 [1916].

G.R. No. 142007 March 28,
2001 - MANUEL C. FELIX v. 17. National Tobacco Administration v. Commission on Audit, 311 SCRA
ENERTECH SYSTEMS 755, 769 [1999].
INDUSTRIES, ET AL.

18. Anti-Graft League of the Philippines, Inc. v. Oreta, 99 SCRA 648

G.R. No. 143173 March 28, [1980].
2001 - PEDRO ONG, ET AL. v.
SOCORRO PAREL, ET AL. 19. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 546.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=324 13/14
5/18/2020 G.R. Nos. 105965-70 March 20, 2001 - GEORGE UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL : March 2001 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
G.R. No. 144169 March 28, 20. Cuyegkeng v. Cruz, 108 Phil. 1155 [1960].
2001 - KHE HONG CHENG v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. 21. Ruperto G. Martin quoting "The Ombudsman, by Delegate Rodolfo P.
Robles of the 1987 Constitutional Convention, p. 1", Law and
G.R. No. 131836 March 30, Jurisprudence on the Freedom Constitution of the Philippines, 1986,
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. Manila, p. 706."cralaw virtua1aw library

MELITA SINCO, ET AL.

22. Espinosa v. Ombudsman, supra, Note 2.

G.R. No. 137564 March 30,
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. 23. Hector S. de Leon, The Law on Public Officers and Election Law, Third
DOMINADOR DOMENDED Edition, 1997, Rex Book Store, Manila, p. 125.

G.R. No. 137648 March 30, 24. Lo Cham v. Ocampo, 77 Phil. 635 [1946].
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
IRENEO PADILLA 25. R.A. No. 6770.

G.R. No. 140311 March 30, 26. R.A. No. 8249, Sec. 4.
2001 - DENNIS T. GABIONZA v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

Back to Home | Back to Main

Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=324 14/14