Anda di halaman 1dari 6

SUBJECT: TOPIC: Date Made: Digest Maker:

CRIMPRO Prelim 02/04/2018 Philiprayameling


investigation
CASE NAME: Uy vs. Sandiganbayan
PONENTE: Puno, J. Case Date: March 20, 2001
Rule of Law:
RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989)
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;
Sec. 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.
(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.

Detailed Facts:
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.
Holding:
(1) Section 15 of RA 6770 gives the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction
over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. The law defines such
BLOCK D 2019 1
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) 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.
(3) 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.
(4) 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.
(5) A perusal of the law originally creating the Office of the
BLOCK D 2019 2
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.
(6) 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.
Ruling:
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.

BLOCK D 2019 3
[G.R. No. 149311. February 11, 2005]

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, through SECRETARY HERNANDO


PEREZ, THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION through
DIRECTOR REYNALDO WYCOCO, STATE PROSECUTORS LEO B.
DACERA III, MISAEL M. LADAGA AND MARY JOSEPHINE P.
LAZARO, petitioners, vs. HON. HERMOGENES R. LIWAG, in his
capacity as Presiding Judge Branch 55, Regional Trial Court,
Manila, PANFILO M. LACSON, MICHAEL RAY B.
AQUINO, respondents.
Facts:

Mary Ong alleges that she was a former undercover agent of the
Presidential AntiOrganized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) and the Philippine
National Police (PNP) Narcotics Group Jan. 8, 2001.

She filed before the OMB a complaint against PNP General Panfilo M.
Lacson, PNP Colonel Michael Ray B. Aquino, other high-ranking officials of
the PNP, and several private individuals.

Her complaint-affidavit gave rise to separate cases involving different


offenses imputed to respondents Lacson and Aquino including:

1. Kidnapping for ransom of Zeng Jia Xuan, Hong Zhen Quiao, Zeng Kang
Pang, James Wong and Wong Kam Chong;

2. Murder of Wong Kam Chong; and

BLOCK D 2019 4
3. Kidnapping for ransom and murder of Chong Hiu Ming May 7, 2001.

A panel of prosecutors from the DOJ sent a subpoena to Lacson et al


May 18, 2001 - Lacson and Aquino sent a letter saying the DOJ should
dismiss the complaint because the OMB has a similar complaint with the
same facts May 28, 2001 - DOJ denied dismissal Lacson and Aquino filed in
the RTC a motion for prohibition, insisting the DOJ does not have jurisdiction
Judge Liwag issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the DOJ from
conducting a preliminary investigation DOJ et al appealed to the SC Issues:
W.O.N. the DOJ can concurrently investigate a case wherein the OMB has an
existing complaint before it No - the pendency of the case before the OMB is
one of primary jurisdiction to investigate 1987 Admin Code governing the
DOJ states: Section 1. Declaration of policy. It is the declared policy of the
State to provide the government with a principal law agency which shall be
both its legal counsel and prosecution arm; administer the criminal justice
system in accordance with the accepted processes thereof consisting in the
investigation of the crimes, prosecution of offenders and administration of
the correctional system; Section 3. Powers and Functions. To accomplish its
mandate, the Department shall have the following powers and functions:
Investigate the commission of crimes, prosecute offenders and administer
the probation and correction system; PD 1275 states: Section 1. Creation of
the National Prosecution Service; Supervision and Control of the Secretary of
Justice. There is hereby created and established a National Prosecution
Service under the supervision and control of the Secretary of Justice, to be
composed of the Prosecution Staff in the Office of the Secretary of Justice
and such number of Regional State Prosecution Offices, and Provincial and
City Fiscals Offices as are hereinafter provided, which shall be primarily
responsible for the investigation and prosecution of all cases involving
violations of penal laws. OMB act (RA 6640) states: Sec. 15. Powers,
Functions and Duties. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following
powers, functions and duties: 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 anystage, from any investigatory agency of
Government, the investigation of such cases; Art. 11, Sec. 13 of the
Constitution vests the OMB with plenary investigative powers and fiscal
autonomy They are granted great leeway in investigating and prosecuting
offenses Prosecution under the OMB has preference over other bodies RA
6770 gives them primary jurisdiction in cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan and authorizes them to take over, at any stage, from any
investigatory agency, the investigation of such cases The DOJ hasD general
BLOCK 2019 5
jurisdiction, it cannot diminish the primary jurisdiction of the OMB This is the
first case wherein the first complaint was filed with the OMB before the DOJ
The subsequent assumption of the DOJ would not promote an orderly
administration of Justice Defendants would not know where their recourse
would be (DOJ or OMB) There is a risk of conflicting resolutions regarding
guilt Two investigations would lead to unnecessary expenditure of
government funds Petition dismissed, OMB to have jurisdiction for the
preliminary investigation

BLOCK D 2019 6