UY vs
SANDIGANBAYAN
Preliminary
investigationMarc
h 20, 2001 | Puno |
G.R. 105965-
70FACTSCrime
N/ANature
Motion for Further
Clarification of of
SC decision of
August 9,1999
:"In this connection,
it is the prosecutor,
not the
Ombudsman, who
has the authority to
file
thecorresponding
information/s
against petitioner in
the regional trial
court. The
Ombudsmanexercis
es prosecutorial
powers only in cases
cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan."
In its resolution of
February 22, 2000,
the Court explained
that with the above
decision, theCourt
is recognizing the
authority of the
State and
provincial/city
prosecutirs under
the DOJto have
control over
prosecution of
cases within the
jurisdiction of
regular courts.The
investigatorial/prose
cutorial powers of
the Ombudsman
only relate to cases
within
the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan
(under the
Ombudsman Act,
Sec. 15(1) and Sec.
11).Repeated
references to the
Sandiganbayan's
jurisdiction clearly
serve to limit
theOmbudsman's
and Special
Prosecutor's
authority to cases
cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan
Parties
George Uy
 –
 petitionerHon.
Sandiganbayan,
Hon. Ombudsman,
Special Prosecution
Officer Berbano -
respondents
EventsbeforeTrial
N/ARTC/MTC
N/ACourt
ofAppealsN/ASupr
emeCourt
Essentially, the
respondent
Ombudsman raises
the issue of the
scope of his power
inconducting
preliminary
investigation and
subsequent
prosecution of
criminal offenses in
lightof the
provisions of the
Ombudsman Act of
1989 (RA 6770).
ISSUE:W/N the
Ombdusman can
conduct
preliminary
investigation and
prosecution of
criminal
offenseswithin the
jurisdiction of
regular
courtsHELD: Yes.
Ombudsman is
clothed with
authority to conduct
preliminary
investigation and to
prosecuteall
criminal cases
involving public
officers and
employees within
the jurisdiction of
the
Sabdiganbayan AN
D those within the
jurisdiction of the
regular courts.
RATIO:
1. Authority
of Ombudsman to
prosecute/investigat
e offenses by public
officers is found
in Sec. 15(1)and 11
of RA 6770 (see
notes), which vests
them power when
such act/omission
by public
officersappears to
be
illegal, unjust,
improper or
inefficient.
 

 Such power of the 
Ombudsman
to investigate/prose
cute is plenary and 
unqialified
—
it pertains to
any act/ommission
of any public officer.
RA 6770 doesn’t
make any
distinction between
cases
cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan,
and those
cognizable by
regular courts.


 
“Any illegal act” is
broad enough to
embrace any crime
committed by a
public officer.
 
  Highlight
 Add Note
 Share Quote

 2. Sec. 15 and
Sec. 11 should not
be construed as
confining the scope
of the
investigatory/prosec
utorypower of the
Ombudsman only to
such cases
cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan.


 Sec. 15 gives the 
Ombudsman
PRIMARY jurisdicti
on
over such cases co
gnizable bySandiga
nbayan
—“primary” means
authorizing the
Ombudsman "to
take over, at any
stage, fromany
investigatory
agency of the
government, the
investigation of
such cases."
o

 The grant of
this authority
does not
necessarily imply
the exclusion
from its jurisdiction
ofcases involving
public officers and
employees
cognizable by other
courts.
o

 Powers granted
by the
legislature (through
RA 6770) to the
Ombudsman are
very broadand
encompass all
kinds of
malfeasance,
misfeasance and
non-feasance
committed bypublic
officers and
employees during
their tenure of
office.


 Sec. 11 should
not be construed
as giving
equal jurisdiction
to the Office of
Ombudsman
and thelimited
authority of the
Special Prosecutor.
o

 The Office of
the Special
Prosecutor is
merely a
component of
the Office of
theOmbudsman
and may only act
under the
supervision and
control and upon
authority ofthe
Ombudsman.
o

 
It is the Special
Prosecutor’s power
which is
limited to criminal
cases within
the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan
. The Ombudsman,
on the other hand is
mandated awider
power by law to act
on
all complaints
against officers and
employees, and
toenforce their
administrative, civil
and criminal
liability in every
case where the
evidencewarrants.
o
 However, the
law allows
the Ombudsman
to direct
the Special Prosecu
tor
to prosecutecases
outside the
Sandiganbayan's
jurisdiction in
accordance with
Section 11 (4c),
inorder to help him
carry out his duty.
Such Special
Proescutor is still
under his
supervisionand
control.3. The
prosecution of
offenses committed
by public officers
and employees
is one of the
most importantfunct
ions of the
Ombudsman. In
passing RA 6770,
the Congress
deliberately
endowed
theOmbudsman
with such power to
make him a more
active and effective
agent of the people
inensuring
accountability in
public office. A
review of the
development of our
Ombudsman laws
revealsthis intent.
(This part proclaims
a long history of
how the
Ombudsman Law
was enacted.)


 The
1973 Constitution
 mandated the
legislature to create
an office of the
Ombudsman to
beknown as
Tanodbayan. Its
powers shall not be
limited to receiving
complaints and
makingrecommend
ations, but shall
also include the ling
and prosecution of
criminal, civil
oradministrative
case before the
appropriate body in
case of failure of
justice.
o
 Marcos, on June
11, 1978,
exercising his powe
r
under Proclamation
1081, enactedPresi
dential Decree (PD)
1487 creating the
Office of the
Ombudsman to be
known
asTanodbayan. Its
principal task was
to "investigate, on
complaint, any
administrative act
ofany administrative
agency including
any government-
owned or controlled
corporation."


 With the ratification 
of the
1987 Constitution
, a new Office of the
Ombudsman was
created. Thepresent
Ombudsman, as
protector of the
people, is
mandated to act
promptly on
complaints led
inany form or
manner against
public officials or
employees of the
government or any
subdivision,agency
or instrumentality
thereof, including
government-owned
or controlled
corporations.
o

 As a new Office
of the Ombudsman
was established,
the then
existing Tanodbaya
nbecame the Office
of the Special
Prosecutor which
continued to
function and
exercise itspowers
as provided by law,
except those
conferred on the
Office of the
Ombudsmancreate
d under the 1987
Constitution.


 In September 1989
, Congress passed
RA 6770
 providing for the
functional and
structuralorganizati
on of the Office of
the Ombudsman.
This gave the
Ombudsman not
only the duty
toreceive and relay
the people's
grievances, but also
the duty to
investigate and
prosecute for andin
their behalf, civil,
criminal and
administrative
offenses committed
by government
officers
andemployees as
embodied in
Sections 15 and 11
of the law.

 Clearly, the Philippi
ne Ombudsman
departs from the cla
ssical Ombudsman 
model whosefunctio
n is merely to
receive and process
the people's
complaints against
corrupt and
abusivegovernment
personnel.
You're Reading a Preview
Upload your documents to download.
Upload to Download
OR

Become a Scribd member to read and download full documents.

Start Your 30 Day FREE Trial
Summary | Save 28 min
The prosecution power of the Ombudsman extends only to cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan.

 The Ombudsman has no authority to prosecute cases falling within the

jurisdiction of regular courts.
 Ombudsman is clothed with authority to conduct preliminary investigation
and to prosecute all criminal cases involving public officers and employees.
The investigation and prosecutorial powers relate to cases rightfully falling
within jurisdiction of the Sandvillianbayan under Section 15 (1) of RA 6770.

Section 11 grants the Office of the Special Prosecutor the power to conduct preliminary
investigation and prosecute criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

 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 it
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient
 The power to investigate and prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman
is plenary and unqualified.
Publicize matters covered by its investigation

 Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and

corruption in the Government and make recommendations for their
elimination and the observance of high standards of ethics and efficiency.

The Philippine Ombudsman 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 corrupt
practices.

 The legislature has vested him with broad powers to enable him to
implement his own actions. The rules of court must be read in conjunction
with RA 6770 which charged the Ombudsman with the duty to investigate
and prosecute all illegal acts and omissions of public officers/employees.

Justice B.P. Pardo, dissenting:

 The Constitution and the law did not create the office of Ombudsman to be
a super prosecutor or fiscal of offenses committed by public officers and
employees.
 His powers are only those expressly granted by the Constitution or the law,
nothing more.

To investigate and correct any act or omission that appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or
inefficient.

 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 of any government-owned or controlled corporation with
original charter, to perform and expedite any act required by law.

Section 11, subparagraph 4 (c) of R.A. No. 6770, states that:

 The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall, under the supervision and
control and upon the authority of the Ombudsman, have the following
powers: (a) To conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal
cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan."4
 In line with the aforestated constitutional provisions, then President Corazon
C. Aquino signed Executive Order No. 244 limiting the special prosecutor’s
authority.
  Section 2 - “The Office of Tanodbayan shall have the exclusive authority to
have the preliminary investigation of all cases cognizable by the
Sandienbayan.”

The law recognizes a concurrence of jurisdiction between the Office of the Ombudsman and
other investigation agencies of the government in the prosecution of cases cognizable by
regular courts.

 The Ombudsman has exclusive power to conduct preliminary

investigations, file and prosecute criminal cases falling within the original
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
 The Special Prosecutor, "an organic component of the office of the
ombudsman ** under the supervision and control of [the] Ombudsman, **
has the power to… conduct preliminary investigation, file [criminal cases],
and prosecute cases within the jurisdiction of… the Special Prosecutor."
 Ombudsman may investigate criminal cases involving public officials
regardless of whether the cases fall within or outside the jurisdiction (i.e.
under the regular courts).

Endnotes:

 Deloso vs. Domingo, 191 SCRA 545 (1990)

 Section 16, RA 6770
 Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan, 160 SCRA 843 (1988); Acop vs. Office of the
Ombudsman, 248 SCRA 5506 (1995)
 Section 13, RA 6990
 Sponsorship Speech of Senator Edgardo Angara, Senate Bill 543, June 8,
1988
 Rowat, The Ombudsman Plan
 Cortes, Redress of Grievances and the Philippine Ombudsman
(Tanodbayan), Philippine Law Journal, vol. 57, March 1982, pp. 1-24.
 Tuason, A Commitment to Official Integrity

The law defined administrative act as any action including decisions, omissions,
recommendations, practices, or procedures of an administrative agency.

 Administrative agency is defined as any department or other governmental

unit including any government-owned or controlled corporation, any official,
or any employee acting or purporting to act by reason of connection with the
government.
Sandiganbayan Cases

 A complaint filed or taken cognizance of by the Office of the Ombudsman

charging any public officer or employee including those in government
owned or controlled corporations with an act or omission alleged to be
illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient is an Ombudsman case.

Ombudsman cases

 "Ombudsman cases" are those cases cognizable by the regular courts, not
falling under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but which involves "any
act or omission of any public official, employees, office or agency, when
such act/offense appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient."

Tamayo v. Gsell, 35 Phil. 953

 National Tobacco Administration v. Commission on Audit, 311 SCRA 755,

769 [1999]
 Anti-Graft League of the Philippines, Inc. v. Oreta, 99 SCRA 648
 Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 546
 Cuyegkeng v. Cruz, 108 Phil. 1155
 Ruperto G. Martin quoting “The Ombudsman, by Delegate Rodolfo P.
Robles of the 1987 Constitutional Convention”, “Law and Jurisprudence on
the Freedom Constitution” (1986)

Uy vs Sandiganbayan GR No.105965-70 March 20, 2001 (CrimPro 2016)

Posted onJULY 15, 2016

Issue: Wether or not the prosecutory power of the Ombudsman has no authority to
prosecute cases falling within the jurisdiction of regular courts?

Held: No. The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the
Ombudsman us plenary and unqualified. It has been held that the clause “any illegal
act or omission of any public officials” is broad enough to embrace all kinds of
malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance committed by public officers and
employees during their tenure of office.

malfeasance – bad and illegal acts, especially by a public official.

Misfeasance – An act that is legal but performed improperly.
Nonfeasance – omission to do a duty.
The court held in the case of Sanchez vs. Demetriou that the power of the
Ombudsman under Section 15 (1) of RA 6770 is not an exclusive authority but rather
a shared or concurrent authority in respect of the offense charged. Thus,
Administrative Order No. 8 issued by the Office of Ombudman provides: The
prosecution of case cognizable by the Sandiganbayan shall be under the direct
exclusive control and supervision by the Office of the Ombudsman. The law
recognizes a concurrence of jurisdiction between the Office of the Ombudsman and
other investigate agencies of government in the prosecution of cases cognizable by
regular courts.

Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD

Share this:

 Twitter
 Facebook

Related
Fabian vs Desierto GR No.
407 Phil. 154

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.

The Court stated in its decision dated August 9, 1999:

"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."
It explained in the resolution of February 22, 2000 that:

"(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."
Seeking clarification of the foregoing ruling, respondent Ombudsman raises
the following points:

"The jurisdiction of the Honorable Sandiganbayan is not parallel to

(1) or equated with the broader jurisdiction of the Office of the
Ombudsman;
The phrase "primary jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman
(2) over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan" is not a delimitation of
its jurisdiction solely to Sandiganbayan cases; and
The authority of the Office of the Special Prosecutor to prosecute
cases before the Sandiganbayan cannot be confused with the
(3)
broader investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Office of the
Ombudsman."
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:

"Sec. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties.--The Office of the

Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties:

(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"

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:

"Sec. 11. Structural Organization.-- x x x

xxx

(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.

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

(a) To conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal

cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan;

(b) To enter into plea bargaining agreements; and

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

The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the
Ombudsman is 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 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 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]

The reference made by RA 6770 to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan,

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

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 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 Ombudsman and may only act under the supervision
and control and upon authority of the Ombudsman.[3] Its power to conduct
preliminary investigation and to 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. [4] To carry out this duty,
the law allows him to utilize the personnel of 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.[5] 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 RA 6770.

The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers and employees is

one of the 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 and effective agent of the people in ensuring
accountability in public office.[6] A review of the development of our
Ombudsman laws reveals this intent.

The concept of Ombudsman originated in Sweden in the early 19th century,

referring to an officer appointed by the legislature to handle the people's
grievances against administrative and judicial actions. He was primarily
tasked with receiving complaints from persons aggrieved by administrative
action or inaction, conducting investigation thereon, and making
recommendations to the appropriate administrative agency based on his
findings. He relied mainly on the power of persuasion and the high prestige
of the office to effect his recommendations.[7]

In this jurisdiction, several Ombudsman-like agencies were established by

past Presidents to serve as the people's medium for airing grievances and
seeking redress against abuses and misconduct in the government. These
offices were conceived with 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 charged with
receiving complaints against public officials for acts of corruption,
dereliction of duty and irregularity in office, and conducting a thorough
investigation of these complaints. The Integrity Board was succeeded by
several other agencies which performed basically the same functions of
complaints-handling and investigation. These were the Presidential
Complaints and Action Commission under President Ramon Magsaysay,
the Presidential Committee on Administration Performance Efficiency
under President Carlos Garcia, the Presidential Anti-Graft Committee
under President Diosdado Macapagal, and the Presidential Agency on
Reform and Government Operations and the Office of the Citizens
Counselor, both under President Ferdinand Marcos. It was observed,
however, that these agencies failed to realize their objective for they did not
enjoy the political independence necessary for the effective performance of
their function as government critic. Furthermore, their powers extended to
no more than fact-finding and recommending.[8]

Thus, in the advent of the 1973 Constitution, the members of the

Constitutional Convention saw the need to constitutionalize the office of an
Ombudsman, to give it political independence and adequate powers to
enforce its recommendations.[9] The 1973 Constitution mandated the
legislature to create an office of the Ombudsman to 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, civil or administrative case before the appropriate body in case
of failure of justice. Section 6, Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution read:

"Sec. 6. The Batasang Pambansa shall create an office of the Ombudsman,

to be known as Tanodbayan, which shall receive and investigate complaints
relative to public office, including those in government-owned or controlled
corporations, make appropriate recommendations, and in case of failure
of justice as defined by law, file and prosecute the corresponding
criminal, civil or administrative case before the proper court or
body."
Implementing this constitutional provision, President Marcos, on June 11,
1978, exercising his power under Proclamation 1081, enacted Presidential
Decree (PD) 1487 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 agency[11] including any
government-owned or controlled corporation."[12] The Tanodbayan also had
the duty to file and prosecute the corresponding criminal, civil, 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 manner resulting in a failure of justice.[13] It should be noted,
however, that the prosecution of cases falling within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan was to be done by the Tanodbayan through the Special
Prosecutor who, according to PD 1486,[14] had the exclusive authority to
conduct preliminary investigation, file information for and prosecute cases
within the jurisdiction of said court. The Special Prosecutor was then under
the control and supervision of the Secretary of Justice.[15]

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 to investigate administrative acts of administrative
agencies by authorizing it to conduct an investigation on its own motion or
initiative, even without a complaint 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 Tanodbayan and
placing under his direction and control the Special Prosecutor who had the
"exclusive authority to conduct preliminary investigation of all cases
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 Tanodbayan has reason to believe that any public official,
employee, or other person has acted in a manner warranting criminal or
disciplinary action or proceedings, he 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 Sandiganbayan or
the proper court or before the proper administrative agency.[18]

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 vested in the Special Prosecutor to the Tanodbayan
himself. Thus, the Tanodbayan was empowered to directly conduct
preliminary investigation, file information and prosecute cases within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and other courts. The amendment gave
the Tanodbayan the exclusive authority to conduct preliminary
investigation of all cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan; to file
information therefor and to direct and control the prosecution of said cases.
[19]
 Section 10 of PD 1630 provided:

"Sec. 10. Powers.--The Tanodbayan shall have the following powers:

He may investigate, on complaint by any person or on his own

motion or initiative, any administrative act whether amounting to
(a)
any criminal offense or not of any administrative agency including
any government-owned or controlled corporation;
xxx
 If after preliminary investigation he finds a prima facie case, he may
file the necessary information or complaint with the Sandiganbayan
(e)
or any proper court or administrative agency and prosecute the
same."
Section 18 further stated:

"Sec. 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 manner warranting criminal or disciplinary
action or proceedings, he shall conduct the necessary investigation and
shall file and prosecute the corresponding criminal or administrative case
before the Sandiganbayan or the proper court or before the proper
administrative agency."
With the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, a new Office of the
Ombudsman was created. The present Ombudsman, as protector of the
people, is mandated to 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 to notify the complainants of the
action taken and the result thereof.[20] He possesses the following powers,
functions and duties:

Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or

omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when
"1.
such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or
inefficient;
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 of any government-owned or
2.
controlled corporation with original charter, to perform and
expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent and
correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties.
Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a
public official or employee at fault, and recommend his removal,
3.
suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure
compliance therewith.
4. Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to
such 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 use of public funds or
 properties, and report any irregularity to the Commission on Audit
for appropriate action.
Request any government agency for assistance and information
5. necessary in the discharge of its responsibilities, and to examine, if
necessary, pertinent records and documents.
Publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances
6.
so warrant and with due prudence.
Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement,
fraud, and corruption in the Government and make
7.
recommendations for their elimination and the observance of high
standards of ethics and efficiency.
Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or
8.
perform such functions or duties as may be provided by law."[21]
As a new Office of the Ombudsman was established, the then existing
Tanodbayan became the Office of the Special Prosecutor which continued
to function and exercise its powers as provided by law, except those
conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman created under the 1987
Constitution.[22]

The frameworks for the Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the
Special Prosecutor were laid down by President Corazon Aquino in
Executive Order (EO) 243 and EO 244, both passed on July 24, 1987.

In September 1989, Congress passed RA 6770 providing for the functional

and 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 and relay the people's grievances, but also the
duty to investigate and prosecute for and in their behalf, civil, criminal and
administrative offenses committed by government officers and employees
as embodied in Sections 15 and 11 of the law.

Clearly, the Philippine Ombudsman departs from the classical Ombudsman

model whose function is merely to receive and process the people's
complaints against corrupt and abusive government personnel. The
Philippine Ombudsman, as protector 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 corrupt practices
and such other offenses that may be committed by such officers and
employees. The legislature has vested him with broad powers to enable him
to 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 Sandiganbayan. It is apparent from the history and the language of
the present law that the legislature intended such power to apply not only
to cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but also those within
the jurisdiction of regular courts. The Court observed in the case
of Republic vs. Sandiganbayan:[23]

"A perusal of the law originally creating the Office of the Ombudsman then
(to be 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 power to investigate and
prosecute civil and criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan and even the
regular courts.

xxx

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 organization of the present Office of the
Ombudsman. This later law retained in the Ombudsman the power of the
former Tanodbayan to 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. x x x."
Finally, it must be clarified that the authority of the Ombudsman to
prosecute cases 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 and direct the prosecution of all criminal
actions under Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The
Rules of Court must be read in conjunction with RA 6770 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 Sanchez vs. Demetriou[24] that the power of the Ombudsman under
Section 15 (1) of RA 6770 is not an exclusive authority but rather a shared
or concurrent authority in respect of the offense charged. Thus,
Administrative Order No. 8 issued by the Office of the Ombudsman
provides:
"The prosecution of case cognizable by the Sandiganbayan shall be under
the direct 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 Ombudsman is only in Ombudsman cases
in the sense defined (therein).[25] The law recognizes a concurrence of
jurisdiction between the Office of the Ombudsman and other investigative
agencies of government in the prosecution of cases cognizable by regular
courts."
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court's ruling in its decision dated August 9,
1999 and its resolution dated February 20, 2000 that the Ombudsman
exercises prosecutorial powers only in cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan is SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Buena,

Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
Kapunan, J., I concur in the result.
Quisumbing, J., on leave.
Pardo, J., I dissent. See attached.
De Leon, Jr., J., I join the dissenting opinion of Justice B. P. Pardo.

[1]
 Deloso vs. Domingo, 191 SCRA 545 (1990).
[2]
 Section 16, RA 6770.

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

Ombudsman, 248 SCRA 566 (1995).

[4]
 Section 13, RA 6770.
[5]
 Section 31, RA 6770; Lastimosa vs. Vasquez, 243 SCRA 497 (1995).

 Sponsorship Speech of Senator Edgardo Angara, Senate Bill 543, June 8,

[6]

1988.
  Rowat, The Ombudsman Plan. Essays on the Worldwide Spread of an
[7]

Idea (1973).

 Cortes, Redress of Grievances and the Philippine Ombudsman

[8]

(Tanodbayan), Philippine Law Journal, vol. 57, March 1982, pp. 1-24.

 Tuason, A Commitment to Official Integrity (Background, Rationale and

[9]

Explanation of Article XIII, Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan), Philippine

Law Journal, vol. 48, nos. 4 & 5, September and December 1973, pp. 548-
626.

 The law defined "administrative act" as "any action including decisions,

[10]

omissions, recommendations, practices, or procedures of an administrative

agency." (Section 9[b], PD 1487).

 The law defined "administrative agency" as "any department or other

[11]

governmental unit including any government-owned or controlled

corporation, any official, or any employee acting or purporting to act by
reason of connection with the government but it does not include (1) any
court or judge, or appurtenant judicial staff, (2) the members, committees,
or staffs of the National Assembly, or (3) the President or his personal staff,
or (4) the members of the Constitutional Commissions and their personal
staffs." (Section 9[a], PD 1487).
[12]
 Section 10 (a), PD 1487.
[13]
 Section 17, id.

 Creating a Special Court to be known as "Sandiganbayan" and for other

[14]

Purposes.
[15]
 Section 12, PD 1486.
[16]
 Section 10 (a), PD 1607.
[17]
 Section 17, id.
[18]
 Section 19, id.
[19]
 Section 17, PD 1630.
[20]
 Section 12, Article XI, 1987 Constitution.
[21]
 Section 13, id.
[22]
 Section 7, id.
[23]
 200 SCRA 667 (1991).
[24]
 227 SCRA 627 (1993).

 A complaint filed or taken cognizance of by the Office of the

[25]

Ombudsman charging any public officer or employee including those in

government owned or controlled corporations with an act or omission
alleged to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient is an Ombudsman case.

Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
 
 

SECOND DIVISION
 
 
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,       G.R. No. 145938
 
                                 Petitioner,
      Present:
 
 
       
       PUNO, Chairperson,
                  - versus -
       SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
 
       CORONA,
 
       AZCUNA, and
THE HONORABLE AUGUSTO V.
       GARCIA, JJ.
BREVA, Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court, Davao  
 City, Branch 10, ERNESTO     
SALVADOR and GUILLERMO
     Promulgated:
SALDAÑA,
 
                            Respondents.
         February 10, 2006
 x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
 

 
DECISION
 
GARCIA, J.:

 
        In this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
petitioner Office of the Ombudsman seeks the annulment and setting aside
of the Orders dated September 8 and 29, 2000 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Davao City in Criminal Case No. 45, 505-2000
entitled People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Salvador and Guillermo
Saldaña, Accused, a prosecution for violation of the Anti- Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act.
        The facts:
 

        At times material hereto, the above-named accused,

Ernesto  Salvador and Guillermo Saldaña, now private respondents, were
both employees of the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Davao City.  Private
respondent Salvador held the position of Legislative Officer II, while private
respondent Saldaña was the Sanggunian's Secretary.
 
        Investigating news reports regarding the  allegations of Davao City
Councilor Diosdado Mahipus concerning anomalous disbursements of the
city’s PhP1M legislative research fund, the Office of the Ombudsman for
Mindanao, in a proceeding thereat docketed as OMB-MIN-98-0200, thru its
Graft Investigation Officer Rachelle M. Ladrera-Tagud, issued a resolution
(hereinafter referred to as the Ladrera resolution) finding the existence of
sufficient evidence to warrant the criminal prosecution of both private
respondents for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act  No. 3019,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act.  Accompanying the Ladrera resolution is a draft Information[1] bearing
date March 22, 2000, the accusatory portion of which reads:
           

            That sometime in or about 1997, or shortly prior or subsequent thereto, in Davao

City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, ERNESTO
SALVADOR and GUILLERMO SALDAÑA, both low-ranking public employees, committing
the offense while in performance of their official duties and taking advantage of their
public position, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another, did there
and then, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, cause undue injury to the City Government
of Davao thru evident bad faith in the performance of their official duties when accused
Salvador made a cash advance in the amount of P1 million under the Legislative
Research Program of the Sangguniang Panglungsod and in the liquidation of the same,
they made it appear that they have paid said amount to the caterers who provided food
and snacks during the seminars and trainings they have allegedly conducted for the
youth in the different barangays in Davao City when in truth  and  in fact, no seminars
and trainings of said nature were conducted, thereby causing damage and injury to the
government in the said amount.

            CONTRARY TO LAW.

        On May 2, 2000, the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao endorsed the

records of OMB-MIN-98-0200, including the Ladrera resolution and the
draft Information, to the City Prosecutor of Davao.
 
        On May 29, 2000, the City Prosecutor of Davao filed with the RTC of
Davao City the aforementioned Information, thereat docketed as Criminal
Case No. 45, 505-2000 which was raffled to Branch 5 of the court.
 
        Meanwhile, in OMB-MIN-98-0200, private respondent Ernesto
Salvador filed a motion for reconsideration of the Ladrera
resolution, followed a few days later by a similar motion of private
respondent Guillermo Saldaña.
 
        To complement their motions for reconsideration, both private
respondents jointly filed in Criminal Case No. 45, 505-2000 an Omnibus
Manifestations and Motions, praying thereunder as follows:
           

a.           For reconsideration and/or completion of Preliminary Investigation by the

Ombudsman;

b.           Holding in abeyance the implementation of and/or recall the warrant of arrest;

and

c.         To defer further proceedings.

its Order[2] of July 20, 2000, however, the trial court denied the

                        In
omnibus motion.
           

        Subsequently, private respondent Salvador filed with the same court

a Motion to Quash Criminal Case No. 45, 505-2000, invoking the
pronouncement of this Court in George Uy vs. Sandiganbayan[3]  bearing on
the authority of the Ombudsman to file information with regular courts.
 
          On September 8, 2000, the trial court issued an Order[4] considering
as submitted “without any opposition” respondent Salvador's Motion to
Quash.
 
        On the same date - September 8, 2000 - the trial court issued the
herein assailed Order[5] dismissing Criminal Case No. 45, 505-
2000, rationalizing as follows:
 
            Submitted for resolution without opposition is the MOTION TO QUASH filed by
accused Ernesto Salvador, dated August 31, 2000,….  The motion is based on the ground
that the Officer who filed the Information in this case had no authority to do so in light
of the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of George Uy v. Sandiganbayan, et al.
(G.R. Nos. 105965-70) where it is held that –

                        “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.”

xxx       xxx       xxx

                        “The 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 Ombudman's and Special
Prosecutor's authority to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.”

 
 

        Apparently not yet aware of the trial court's aforementioned  order of

dismissal, the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao filed an
Opposition [6] dated September 8, 2000, therein opposing and basically
praying for the denial of Salvador’s Motion to Quash on the argument that
–
 
            1.         While it is true that the Supreme Court has ruled in the case of George Uy
vs. Sandiganbayan, et. al., G.R. Nos. 105965-70, that “it is the prosecutor, not the
Ombudsman, who has authority to file the corresponding information/s against
petitioner in the Regional Trial Court” and “the Ombudsman exercises prosecutorial
powers only in cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan”, it is equally true that said
decision rendered on 09 August 1999 and followed by a Resolution dated 22 February
2000 has never been final and, therefore, premature as of this moment to consider the
same as judicial precedent;

 
     

        Also, seemingly unaware, too, of the dismissal of the case, private

respondent Saldaña filed his own Motion to Quash,[7] dated September 11,
2000, therein likewise citing George Uy.
 

        Apprised later of the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 45, 505-

2000,  petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration[8] which the trial court
denied via its other assailed Order [9] dated September 29, 2000.
       
        On November 29, 2000, petitioner filed the present recourse on the
submission that respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction
and/or with grave abuse of discretion when:
 
I.          HE TOOK COGNIZANCE OF PRIVATE
RESPONDENT SALVADOR'S FATALLY DEFECTIVE MOTION TO
QUASH AND CONSIDERED IT “SUBMITTED FOR RESOLUTION
WITHOUT OPPOSITION”;
 
II.         HE ADOPTED THE GEORGE UY RULING AND DISMISSED
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 45, 505-2000 ON THE GROUND THAT THE
OFFICER WHO FILED THE INFORMATION HAD NO AUTHORITY
TO DO SO, THEREBY DISREGARDING THE FOLLOWING VITAL
CONSIDERATIONS:
 
A.        THE JURISDICTION OF THE HONORABLE
SANDIGANBAYAN IS NOT PARALLEL TO, OR TO BE
EQUATED WITH, THE BROADER JURISDICTION OF THE
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN;
  
B.         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
 
C.        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; AND
 
III.       HE DISREGARDED THE PENDENCY OF PETITIONER'S MOTION
FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION IN THE GEORGE UY CASE
BEFORE THIS HONORABLE COURT.
 
 
 

        We find merit in the petition.

        At the core of the controversy is the perceived overlapping of
jurisdiction between the Office of the Ombudsman and the Department of
Justice  in the investigation and prosecution of offenses committed by
public officers and employees.  The confusion came about as an aftermath
of a series of enactments restructuring the offices of the Ombudsman and
Sandiganbayan, specifically, the following: Rep. Act No. 6770,
the Ombudsman Act of 1989, reorganizing the Office of
the Ombudsman; Rep. Act No. 7975, reorganizing the Sandiganbayan;
and Rep. Act No. 8249, defining the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction.
 
        As may be recalled, it was amidst the foregoing backdrop of
legislative enactments when this Court promulgated on August 9, 1999 its
Decision[10] in the George Uy  case.  In the penultimate paragraph of that
Decision, the Court stated “… 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.”  [11]  Thereafter, the Court, in the same case of  George
Uy, promulgated a Resolution[12] on  February 22, 2000, therein stressing,
as follows:
               
                (T)he clear import of such pronouncement is to recognize the authority of
the State and regular provincial and city prosecutors under the [DOJ] 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 … 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 Ombudman's and Special Prosecutor's authority to cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan”   (Word in bracket added; italization in the
original).

 
        Subsequently, the Ombudsman interposed in George Uy a motion
for further clarification.[13]  Resolving the motion, the Court, this time
speaking thru Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno, in   a Resolution dated
March 20, 2001,[14] nullified and  set aside its pronouncement in its
decision of August 9, 1999 and its resolution of February 20, 2000
in George Uy that the Ombudsman exercises prosecutorial powers only in
cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, thus:
 
        IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court’s ruling in its decision dated August 9,
1999 and its resolution dated February 20, 2000 that the Ombudsman exercises
prosecutorial powers only in cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan is SET
ASIDE.
 
          SO ORDERED.

 
        This time, the Court categorically stated 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.”    Elaborating on its
nullificatory ruling, the Court, in its aforementioned Resolution of March 20,
2001, writes:
            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:

            “Sec 15. Powers, Functions and Duties.–The Office of the

Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties:

            (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;

xxx       xxx       xxx”

Section 11 grants the Office of the Special Prosecutor, an organic component of the
Office of the Ombudsman . . ., the power to conduct preliminary investigation and
prosecute criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.  It states:

            “Sec 11. Structural Organization. – xxx

xxx       xxx       xxx

           

            (4)        The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall, under the

supervision and control and upon authority of the Ombudsman, have
the following powers:

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

xxx       xxx       xxx

            The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is

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
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 clause
"any illegal act or omission of any public official" is broad enough to embrace any crime
committed by a public officer or employee.

            The reference made by RA 6770 to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan,

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

            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. xxx.

            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 RA
6770 [whose] power to conduct preliminary investigation and to 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 …. 

 
          Given the Court’s George Uy ruling under its March 20, 2001
Resolution, the trial court’s assailed Orders of September 8 and 29, 2000,
are, in hindsight, without legal support and must, therefore, be set aside.
This is not necessarily to say, however, that grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, as petitioner presently argues,
attended the issuance of both orders. As it were, the orders were issued
under the aegis of the then prevailing August 9, 1999 George Uy  decision,
as  reiterated in the Court’s February 22, 2000 Resolution. Until they were
contextually superseded and set aside by the March 20,
2001 George Uy Resolution, the August 9, 1999 decision and February 22,
2000 resolution in question veritably formed part of the legal system  of
the land. And a judicial action taken conformably with what may be
considered as the law of the land cannot, without more, be plausibly
challenged on ground of lack or in excess of jurisdiction.  If respondent
judge is to be called to task, it is perhaps for not heeding petitioner’s plea
to defer action on private respondents’ separate unsworn motions to quash
in Criminal Case No. 45, 505-2000  on the ground stated therein pending
resolution of petitioner’s Motion for Further Clarification in George Uy then
pending with this Court.
       
        At any rate, the determinative issue in this case pivots on the
question of whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman was possessed of
the authority to file with the Regional Trial Court of Davao City  the
information for violation of the Anti-Graft Law against herein private
respondents. This issue and practically all arguments and counter-
arguments on collateral matters raised in the pleadings have been
adequately addressed, if not rendered functus oficio, by the clarificatory
resolution in the George Uy case. They need not detain us any longer.
 
        WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the assailed orders of
the respondent judge in Criminal Case No. 45, 505-
2000 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
 
        SO ORDERED.
 
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
 
        WE CONCUR:
 

 
 
 
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
 
 

 
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
 
 

 
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
 
ATTESTATION
  

        I attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court’s Division.
 
 
 
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
 
 
 
 
CERTIFICATION
 
        Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the
Division Chairman's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in
the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
 
 
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
 

 
  

 
               

       
 

       
           

 
 
       

[1]
               Rollo, pp. 47-48.
[2]
               Ibid., pp. 67-68.
 
[3]
               312 SCRA 77 (1999).
[4]
               Rollo, p. 72.
[5]
               Ibid., pp. 33-34.
[6]
               Rollo, pp. 73-74.
[7]
               Ibid., pp. 95-96.
[8]
               Ibid., pp. 97-98.
[9]
               Ibid.,  pp. 35-38.
[10]
             See Note # 3, supra.
[11]
             At page 90.
[12]
             See 354 SCRA 651, 656 (2001).
[13]
             Rollo, pp. 75-94.
[14]
             See Note #12, supra.