Professional Documents
Culture Documents
On May 9, 2000, the Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB), Office of the
administrative and criminal cases against petitioners for a period of almost
Ombudsman filed with the Administrative Adjudication Bureau complaints
eight (8) years from the filing of their complaints-affidavits.
charging petitioners with administrative and criminal offenses, i.e. for violation of
Sec. 4(a) of RA 6713 (The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
2. WON respondent violated petitioners constitutional right to a speedy disposition
and Employees, Sec. 22(a)(c)(i)(k)(t) of EO 292, for dishonesty and grave misconduct,
of their cases YES
for gross neglect of duty, inefficiency, incompetence in the performance of official
a. The doctrinal rule is that in the determination of whether that right has
duties and non-compliance with RA 7718, and for violation of Sec. 3(b), (c) and (e) of
been violated, the factors that may be considered and balanced are:
RA 3019, in connection with the bidding of the Land Titling Computerization
i. length of the delay
Project of the LRA.
ii. reasons for the delay
Petitioner vehemently denied the charges and formally offered their evidence on
b. Respondent was Constitutionally created to protect the people which
January 29, 2002.
includes promptly acting on complaints to promote efficient service by the
They then filed a Motion to Set Date for the Simultaneous Filing of Memorandum
by Each Party.
On December 12, 2002, Edilberto Feliciano, one of the petitioners, filed a Motion for acted with grave abuse of discretion and also violated the Constitutional right to a speedy disposition of
Early Resolution expressing alarm over the inaction of the Office of the cases.
Ombudsman and praying that the cases be resolved immediately considering that
all evidences have been formally offered.
NOTES:
The Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman requires that the hearing
Six (6) years from the filing, and more than four (4) years after the formal
officer is given a definite period of not later than thirty (30) days to resolve the
submission of evidence, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss all the cases against
case after the formal investigation shall have been concluded.
them, citing violation of right to due process and speedy disposition of cases.
Complainant FFIB, despite notice, did not object. Yet, cases remain unsolved.
Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus praying that the Office of the Ombudsman
(respondent) be ordered to dismiss the administrative and criminal cases against
them.
Respondent argued that (1) it did not violate the Constitutional right to a speedy
disposition of cases; (2) petitioners cannot resort to mandamus because dismissing
the admin and crim cases involves respondents exercise of discretion; (3) it did not
act with grave abuse of discretion for failing to resolve the cases because the
prosecutors assigned are merely exercising extreme care in verifying, evaluating,
and assessing the charges; (4) the delay in the ongoing review is not vexatious,
capricious or oppressive.