6/14/2017 G.R. No.

163586

TodayisWednesday,June14,2017

Custom Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

THIRDDIVISION

G.R.No.163586January27,2009

SHARONCASTRO,Petitioner,
vs.
HON.MERLINDELORIA,asPresidingJudge,RegionalTrialCourt,Branch65,GuimarastheCOARegion
VI,representedbyitsDirectorandHON.COURTOFAPPEALS,Respondents.

DECISION

AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,J.:

BeforetheCourtisaPetitionforCertiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourtfiledbySharonCastro(petitioner)to
assailtheJuly22,2003Decision1oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)whichdismissedCAG.R.SPNo.69350andthe
March26,2004CAResolution2whichdeniedthemotionforreconsideration.

Thefactsareofrecord.

On May 31, 2000, petitioner was charged by the Ombudsman before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 65,
Guimaras,withMalversationofPublicFunds,underanInformationwhichreads,asfollows:

That on or about the 17th day of August 1998, and for sometime prior thereto, in the Municipality of Buenavista,
ProvinceofGuimaras,PhilippinesandwithinthejurisdictionofthethisHonorableCourt,abovenamedaccused,a
publicofficer,beingtheRevenueOfficerIoftheBureauofInternalRevenue,Buenavista,Guimarasandassuch,
wasinthecustodyandpossessionofpublicfundsintheamountofP556,681.53,PhilippineCurrency,representing
thevalueofhercollectionsandotheraccountabilities,forwhichsheisaccountablebyreasonofthedutiesofher
office,insuchcapacityandcommittingtheoffenseinrelationtooffice,takingadvantageofherpublicposition,with
deliberate intent, and with intent to gain, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously appropriate, take,
misappropriate, embezzle and convert to her own personal use and benefit said amount of P556,681.53, and
despitenoticeanddemandsmadeuponheraccountforsaidpublicfunds,shehasfailedtodoso,tothedamage
andprejudiceofthegovernment.

CONTRARYTOLAW.3

PetitionerpleadedNOTGUILTYwhenarraignedonFebruary16,2001.

OnAugust31,2001,petitionerfiledaMotiontoQuashonthegroundsoflackofjurisdictionandlackofauthorityof
the Ombudsman to conduct the preliminary investigation and file the Information. Petitioner argued that the
InformationfailedtoallegehersalarygradeamaterialfactuponwhichdependsthejurisdictionoftheRTC.Citing
Uyv.Sandiganbayan,4petitionerfurtherarguedthatasshewasapublicemployeewithsalarygrade27,thecase
filedagainstherwascognizablebytheRTCandmaybeinvestigatedandprosecutedonlybythepublicprosecutor,
andnotbytheOmbudsmanwhoseprosecutorialpowerwaslimitedtocasescognizablebytheSandiganbayan.5

TheRTCdeniedtheMotiontoQuashinanOrder6datedSeptember7,2001.ItheldthatthejurisdictionoftheRTC
overthecasedidnotdependonthesalarygradeofpetitioner,butonthepenaltyimposableuponthelatterforthe
offensecharged.7Moreover,itsustainedtheprosecutorialauthorityoftheOmbudsmaninthecase,pointingoutthat
in Uy, upon motion for clarification filed by the Ombudsman, the Court set aside its August 9, 1999 Decision and
issued a March 20, 2001 Resolution expressly recognizing the prosecutorial and investigatory authority of the
OmbudsmanincasescognizablebytheRTC.

The RTC further held that the Motion to Quash was contrary to Sec. 1, Rule 117, for it was filed after petitioner
pleadednotguiltyundertheInformation.8

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_163586_2009.html 1/5
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 163586

PetitionerfiledaMotionforReconsideration,9whichtheRTCdeniedinitsDecember18,2001Order.10

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari11 with the CA, but the latter dismissed the petition in the Decision under
review.

Petitionersmotionforreconsideration12wasalsodenied.

Hence,thepresentpetition,confiningtheissuestothefollowing:

1. Whether or not the Ombudsman, as of May 31, 2000, when the Information for Malvesation of Public
FundswasinstitutedagainstthePetitioner,hadtheauthoritytofilethesameinlightofthisSupremeCourts
ruling in the First "Uy vs. Sandiganbayan" case, which declared that the prosecutorial powers of the
OmbudsmanislimitedtocasescognizablebytheSandiganbayan.

2.WhetherornottheclarificatoryResolutionissuedbytheSupremeCourtdatedFebruary22,2001intheUy
vs. Sandiganbayan case can be made applicable to the PetitionerAccused, without violating the
constitutionalprovisiononexpostfactolawsanddenialoftheaccusedtodueprocess.13

PetitionercontendsthatfromthetimeofthepromulgationonAugust9,1999oftheDecisionoftheCourtinUyupto
thetimeofissuanceonMarch20,2001oftheResolutionoftheCourtinthesamecase,theprevailingjurisprudence
wasthattheOmbudsmanhadnoprosecutorialpowersovercasescognizablebytheRTC.Astheinvestigationand
prosecutionagainstpetitionerwasconductedbytheOmbudsmanbeginningApril26,2000,thentheAugust9,1999
Decision in Uy was applicable, notwithstanding that the said decision was set aside in the March 20, 2001
ResolutionoftheCourtinsaidcase.Hence,theInformationthatwasfiledagainstpetitionerwasvoidforatthattime
theOmbudsmanhadnoinvestigatoryandprosecutorialpowersoverthecase.

Thepetitionlacksmerit.

The petition calls to mind Office of the Ombudsman v. Enoc,14 wherein accused Ruben Enoc, et al. invoked the
August9,1999DecisionoftheCourtinUy15inamotiontodismissthe11countsofmalversationthatwerefiled
against them by the Ombudsman before the RTC. The RTC granted the motion but upon petition filed by the
Ombudsman,theCourtreversedtheRTCandheld:

Inturn,petitionerfiledaManifestationinvokingtheverysameresolutionpromulgatedonMarch20,2001inUyv.
Sandiganbayan reconsidering the ruling that the prosecutory power of the Ombudsman extended only to cases
cognizablebytheSandiganbayan.

Indeed,thisCourthasreconsideredthesaidrulingandheldthattheOmbudsmanhaspowerstoprosecutenotonly
graftcaseswithinthejurisdictionoftheSandiganbayanbutalsothosecognizablebytheregularcourts.Itheld:

ThepowertoinvestigateandtoprosecutegrantedbylawtotheOmbudsmanisplenaryandunqualified.Itpertains
to any act or omission of any public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust,
improperorinefficient.ThelawdoesnotmakeadistinctionbetweencasescognizablebytheSandiganbayanand
thosecognizablebyregularcourts.Ithasbeenheldthattheclause"anyillegalactoromissionofanypublicofficial"
isbroadenoughtoembraceanycrimecommittedbyapublicofficeroremployee.

ThereferencemadebyRA6770tocasescognizablebytheSandiganbayan,particularlyinSection15(1)givingthe
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
prosecutorypoweroftheOmbudsmantosuchcases.

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
necessarilyimplytheexclusionfromitsjurisdictionofcasesinvolvingpublicofficersandemployeescognizableby
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
committedbypublicofficersandemployees.Indeed,itmustbestressedthatthepowersgrantedbythelegislature
to the Ombudsman are very broad and encompass all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance
committedbypublicofficersandemployeesduringtheirtenureofoffice.

Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman should not be equated with the limited authority of the
SpecialProsecutorunderSection11ofRA6770.TheOfficeoftheSpecialProsecutorismerelyacomponentofthe
Office of the Ombudsman and may only act under the supervision and control and upon authority of the
Ombudsman.Itspowertoconductpreliminaryinvestigationandtoprosecuteislimitedtocriminalcaseswithinthe

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_163586_2009.html 2/5
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 163586
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Certainly, the lawmakers did not intend to confine the investigatory and
prosecutorypoweroftheOmbudsmantothesetypesofcases.TheOmbudsmanismandatedbylawtoactonall
complaintsagainstofficersandemployeesofthegovernmentandtoenforcetheiradministrative,civilandcriminal
liabilityineverycasewheretheevidencewarrants.Tocarryoutthisduty,thelawallowshimtoutilizethepersonnel
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. The law likewise allows him to direct the Special
prosecutor to prosecute cases outside the Sandiganbayans jurisdiction in accordance with Section 11(4c) of RA
6770.

We,therefore,holdthattheOmbudsmanhasauthoritytoinvestigateandprosecuteCriminalCaseNos.374(97)to
385(97)againstrespondentsintheRTC,Branch19ofDigos,DavaoDelSurevenasthisauthorityisnotexclusive
andissharedbyhimwiththeregularprosecutors.

WHEREFORE,theorder,datedOctober7,2000,oftheRegionalTrialCourt,branch19ofDigos,DavaodelSuris
SETASIDEandCriminalCaseNos.374(97)to385(97)areherebyREINSTATEDandtheRegionalTrialCourtis
ORDEREDtotryanddecidethesame.(Emphasissupplied)

SimilarlyrelevantisthecaseofOfficeofOmbudsmanv.Hon.Breva,16inwhich,citingtheAugust9,1999Decision
inUy,theRTCdismissedacriminalcomplaintthatwasfiledbeforeitbytheOmbudsman.TheCourtreversedthe
RTC,for,"giventheCourtsUyrulingunderitsMarch20,2001Resolution,thetrialcourtsassailedOrdersxxxare,
inhindsight,withoutlegalsupportandmust,therefore,besetaside."

Itissettled,therefore,thattheMarch20,2001ResolutioninUy,thattheOmbudsmanhasprosecutorialpowersin
casescognizablebytheRTC,extendseventocriminalinformationfiledorpendingatthetimewhenitsAugust9,
1999Decisionwastheoperativerulingontheissue.

Petitioner would argue, however, that the March 20, 2001 Resolution in Uy cannot have retroactive effect, for
otherwiseitwouldamountto"anexpostfactolaw,whichisconstitutionallyproscribed."17

Petitionerisgraspingatstraws.

Ajudicialinterpretationofastatute,suchastheOmbudsmanAct,constitutespartofthatlawasofthedateofits
original passage. Such interpretation does not create a new law but construes a preexisting one it merely casts
lightuponthecontemporaneouslegislativeintentofthatlaw.18Hence,theMarch20,2001ResolutionoftheCourt
inUy interpreting the Ombudsman Act is deemed part of the law as of the date of its effectivity on December 7,
1989.

Whereajudicialinterpretationdeclaresalawunconstitutionalorabandonsadoctrinalinterpretationofsuchlaw,the
Court,recognizingthatactsmayhavebeenperformedundertheimpressionoftheconstitutionalityofthelaworthe
validityofitsinterpretation,hasconsistentlyheldthatsuchoperativefactcannotbeundonebythemeresubsequent
declaration of the nullity of the law or its interpretation thus, the declaration can only have a prospective
application.19Butwherenolawisinvalidatednordoctrineabandoned,ajudicialinterpretationofthelawshouldbe
deemedincorporatedatthemomentofitslegislation.20

Inthepresentcase,theMarch20,2001ResolutioninUymadenodeclarationofunconstitutionalityofanylawnor
did it vacate a doctrine long held by the Court and relied upon by the public. Rather, it set aside an erroneous
pubescentinterpretationoftheOmbudsmanActasexpressedintheAugust9,1999Decisioninthesamecase.Its
effect has therefore been held by the Court to reach back to validate investigatory and prosecutorial processes
conductedbytheOmbudsman,suchasthefilingoftheInformationagainstpetitioner.

Withtheforegoingdisquisition,thesecondissueisrenderedmootandacademic.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDISMISSEDforlackofmerit.

Nocosts.

SOORDERED.

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ*
AssociateJustice
ActingChairperson

WECONCUR:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_163586_2009.html 3/5
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 163586

DANTEO.TINGA*
AssociateJustice

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO**
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassigned
tothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJustice
ActingChairperson,ThirdDivision

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,andtheDivisionActingChairpersonsAttestation,itishereby
certifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassigned
tothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
ActingChiefJustice

Footnotes
*InlieuofJusticeConsueloYnaresSantiago,perSpecialOrderNo.556datedJanuary15,2009.

**InlieuofJusticeDiosdadoM.Peralta,perSpecialOrderNo.560datedJanuary16,2009.

1PennedbyAssociateJusticeEloyBello,Jr.andconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesCancioGarcia(aretired
memberoftheSupremeCourt)andMarianodelCastillorollo,p.42
2Id.at56.

3Rollo,pp.1819.

4G.R.No.180214,August9,1999,312SCRA77.

5Rollo,pp.2223.

6Rollo,p.24.

7Id.at25.

8Id.at2526.

9Id.at27.

10Id.at32.

11Id.at33.

12Id.at50.

13Rollo,p.8.

14G.R.Nos.14595768,January25,2002,374SCRA691.

15Uyv.Sandiganbayan,supranote4.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_163586_2009.html 4/5
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 163586
16G.R.No.145938,February10,2006,482SCRA182.

17Petition,rollo,p.12.

18RoosIndustrialConstruction,Inc.v.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.No.172409,February4,
2008,543SCRA666.
19Ejercitov.Sandiganbayan,G.R.No.15729495,November30,2006,509SCRA190.

20Chavezv.PublicEstatesAuthority,G.R.No.133250,May6,2003,403SCRA1.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_163586_2009.html 5/5