CASES DIGESTS
Section 3: Impeachment
Proceedings
Francisco vs. De Venecia, G.R. 160261,
Nov. 10,2003
FACTS: On July 22, 2002, the House of
Representatives adopted a Resolution, which
directed the Committee on Justice "to conduct
an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the
manner of disbursements and expenditures by
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the
Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)." On June 2,
2003, former President Estrada filed an
impeachment complaint, which was dismissed,
against Chief Justice Davide and seven
Associate Justices for "culpable violation of the
Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and
other high crimes." A day after the dismissal, a
second impeachment complaint was filed against
the Chief Justice. Respondent House of
Representatives argues that the House
impeachment Rules do not violate the
Constitution (Sec. 3(5) of Art. XI), contending
that the term initiate does not mean to file.
ISSUE #1: When is an impeachment complaint
deemed initiated?
RULING: In cases where a Member of the
House files a verified complaint of impeachment
or a citizen files a verified complaint that is
endorsed by a Member of the House through a
Section 4: Sandiganbayan
Desierto vs. Carandang, G.R. no. 148076,
Jan. 11, 2011
Facts: Antonio Carandang is the general
manager if the television network RPN. In his
tenure, he was charged with grave misconduct
before the Ombudsman. The charge says that he
had entered into a contract with AT
Broadcasting Incorporated in which he had
financial and material interests. The said
transaction is tantamount to grave misconduct
under the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
In this said petition, Carandang
challenges the jurisdiction over him of the of the
Ombudsman and of the Sandiganbayan on the
ground that he was being held to account for acts
committed while he was serving as general
manager and chief operating officer of Radio
Section 6: Ombudsman as an
Independent Body
Ombudsman versus- CSC, G.R. No. 162215,
July 30, 2007
Facts: The Court is called upon to settle once
again a controversy between two independent