OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs. COURT OF APPEALS | G.R. No. 146486 | March 4, 2005

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 146486, March 4, 2005 
Facts

The enumeration in the Constitution of the impeachable officers is exclusive. The Ombudsman is only one man, not including his Deputies. Thus, only the Ombudsman, not his deputies, is impeachable. 
On 29 December 1999, twenty- two officials and employees of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, led by its two directors, filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman requesting an investigation on the basis of allegations that then Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, herein private respondent Arturo Mojica, committed (1) sexual harassment against Rayvi Padua- Varona, mulcting money from confidential employees: James Alueta and Eden Kiamco and (3) oppression against all employees in not releasing P7,200.00 in benefits of OMB- Visayas employees on the date the said amount was due for release. Fact-finding investigation was conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman and the report was referred by the Ombudsman to a constituted Committee of Peers which initially recommended that the investigation be converted into one solely for purposes of impeachment. However, this recommendation was denied by the Office of the Ombudsman and following the stand of the Office of the Ombudsman that the Deputy Ombudsmen and The Special Prosecutor are not removable through impeachment. On 18 December 2000, despite the expiration of private respondent Mojica's term of office, the Court of Appeals nevertheless rendered the assailed Decision on the grounds of public interest. CA ruled that the Deputy Ombudsman is an impeachable officer. Thus, OMB's appeal. 
Issues

a) Whether or not the Ombudsman‘s Deputies are impeachable.
b) Whether or not the Deputy Ombudsman may be held criminally and/or administratively liable. 
Ruling

Order of the CA is reversed and set aside. The complaints in Criminal Case No.OMB-0-000616 and Administrative Case No. OMB-ADM-0-00-0316 is reinstated and the Office of the Ombudsman is ordered to proceed with the investigation relative to the above cases. The Deputy Ombudsman is not an impeachable officer. Sec. 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution states that ―The President, the Vice- President, the members of the Supreme Court, the members of the Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from Office as provided by law, but not by impeachment‖.  
Records of the Constitutional Commission, as well as the opinions of leading commentators in Constitutional Law reveal that the term Ombudsman in Sec. 2, Article XI of the 1987  Constitution refer to the rank in itself. The Ombudsman is only one man, not including his Deputies. Leading legal luminaries on the Constitution are one in their opinion as to whether or not the Deputy Ombudsman is impeachable. All of them agree that the enumeration impeachable officers in Section 2, Article XI of the 1986 Constitution, are exclusive. In their belief, only the Ombudsman, not his deputies, is impeachable. Thus, where the issue involved was not raised nor presented to the court and not passed upon by the court in the previous case, the decision in the previous case is not stare decisis of the question presented. 
Criminal and Administrative Liability of Deputy Ombudsman As to whether or not the private respondent, then Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, may be held criminally and/or administratively liable, we likewise resolve the issue in favor of the petitioner. The rule that an impeachable officer cannot be criminally prosecuted for the same offenses which constitute grounds for impeachment presupposes his continuance in office. Hence, the moment he is no longer in office because of his removal, resignation, or permanent disability, there can be no bar to his criminal prosecution in the courts. Nor does retirement bar an administrative investigation from proceeding against the private respondent, given that, as pointed out by the petitioner, the former‘s retirement benefits have been placed on hold in view of the provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MICIANO vs. BRIMO | G.R. No. L-22595 | November 1, 1927

MICIANO vs. BRIMO G.R. No. L-22595, November 1, 1927  Facts Joseph G. Brimo, a citizen of Turkey, died and left a partition of the estate. Juan Miciano, the judicial administrator of the estate left filed a scheme of partition. However, Andre Brimo, one of the brothers of the deceased, opposed it. Brimo‘s opposition is based on the fact that the partition in question puts into effect the provisions of Joseph Brimo‘s will which are not in accordance with the laws of his Turkish nationality, for which reason they are void as being in violation of Article 10 of the Civil Code.  Issue Whether or not the national law of the testator is the one to govern his testamentary disposition.  Ruling Joseph Brimo, a Turkish citizen, though he declared in his will that Philippine laws must govern the disposition of his estate; however, it must not prejudice the heir or legatee of the testator. Therefore, the testator‘s national law must govern in accordance wit...
Read more

MICHAEL C. GUY vs. COURT OF APPEALS | G.R. No. 163707 | September 15, 2006

MICHAEL C. GUY vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 163707, September 15, 2006    Facts On October 29, 1992, Sima Wei died in Makati City leaving an estate valued 10 million more or less. His known heirs are his spouse Shirley Guy with their children five children. On June 13, 1997, private respondents Karen Oanes Wei and Kamille Oanes Wei represented by their mother Remedios filed a petition for letters of administration before the Regional Trial Court alleging that they are duly acknowledged illegitimate children of Sima Wei. However, petitioner and co-heirs alleged that private respondent‘s claim had been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished by Remedios‘ June 7, 1993 Release and Waiver of Claim stating that in exchange for the financial and educational support received from petitioner, Remedios and her minor children discharge the estate of Sima Wei and any and all liabilities.   The petition was denied in the lower court and the motion for reconsidered dis...
Read more

EDUARDO MANUEL vs. PEOPLE | GR. No. 165842 | November 29, 2005

EDUARDO MANUEL vs. PEOPLE GR. No. 165842, November 29, 2005    Facts This case is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, convicting the petitioner for the crime of bigamy.    Eduardo P. Manuel, herein petitioner, was first married to Rubylus Gaña on July 18, 1975, who, according to the former, was charged with estafa in 1975 and thereafter imprisoned and was never seen again by him after his last visit. Manuel met Tina B. Gandalera in January 1996 when the latter was only 21 years old. Three months after their meeting, the two got married through a civil wedding in BaguioCity without Gandalera‘s knowledge of Manuel‘s first marriage. In the course of their marriage, things got rocky and Gandalera learned that Eduardo was in fact already married when he married him. She then filed a criminal case of bigamy against Eduardo Manuel. The latter‘s defense being that his decla...
Read more