Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 117 views

    Heide M. Estandarte vs. People of The Philippines

    Uploaded by

    Gretchen Alunday Suarez
    This case discusses a dispute between Heide Estandarte, a school principal, and private complainants, who were teachers at the school. The private complainants filed complaints with the Ombudsman against Estandarte alleging irregularities. The Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the city prosecutor for investigation. Estandarte requested a bill of particulars to understand the specific charges. The city prosecutor provided a bill of particulars from the private complainants. However, the Court held that the Ombudsman cannot be bound by a bill of particulars submitted by private complainants. The case was remanded for determination of whether Estandarte was denied due process during the investigation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Heide M. Estandarte vs. People of The Philippines

    Uploaded by

    Gretchen Alunday Suarez
    117 views6 pages
    This case discusses a dispute between Heide Estandarte, a school principal, and private complainants, who were teachers at the school. The private complainants filed complaints with the Ombudsman against Estandarte alleging irregularities. The Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the city prosecutor for investigation. Estandarte requested a bill of particulars to understand the specific charges. The city prosecutor provided a bill of particulars from the private complainants. However, the Court held that the Ombudsman cannot be bound by a bill of particulars submitted by private complainants. The case was remanded for determination of whether Estandarte was denied due process during the investigation.

    Original Description:

    m

    Original Title

    g

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses a dispute between Heide Estandarte, a school principal, and private complainants, who were teachers at the school. The private complainants filed complaints with the Ombudsman against Estandarte alleging irregularities. The Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the city prosecutor for investigation. Estandarte requested a bill of particulars to understand the specific charges. The city prosecutor provided a bill of particulars from the private complainants. However, the Court held that the Ombudsman cannot be bound by a bill of particulars submitted by private complainants. The case was remanded for determination of whether Estandarte was denied due process during the investigation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    117 views6 pages

    Heide M. Estandarte vs. People of The Philippines

    Uploaded by

    Gretchen Alunday Suarez
    This case discusses a dispute between Heide Estandarte, a school principal, and private complainants, who were teachers at the school. The private complainants filed complaints with the Ombudsman against Estandarte alleging irregularities. The Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the city prosecutor for investigation. Estandarte requested a bill of particulars to understand the specific charges. The city prosecutor provided a bill of particulars from the private complainants. However, the Court held that the Ombudsman cannot be bound by a bill of particulars submitted by private complainants. The case was remanded for determination of whether Estandarte was denied due process during the investigation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 6

    HEIDE M.

    ESTANDARTE
    vs.
    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
    G.R. Nos. 156851-55 February 18, 2008

    AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

    FACTS:

    Petitioner was the school principal of the Ramon Torres National


    High School (RTNHS) in Bago City, Negros Occidental. Sometime in 1998,
    a group of concerned RTNHS teachers (private complainants), sent an
    undated letter to the Schools Division of Bago City (Schools Division)5
    attaching a list of 15 irregularities allegedly committed by the petitioner,
    which the private complainants requested to be investigated. Two
    complaints were eventually filed by private complainants against petitioner
    with the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas.

    The Ombudsman-Visayas forwarded the complaint docketed as


    OMB-VIS-Crim-99-1094 to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Bago City
    for preliminary investigation, instead of filing a counter-affidavit, petitioner
    filed before the City Prosecutor a Motion for Bill of Particulars with Motion
    for Extension of Time to File Counter-Affidavit. In the Motion for Bill of
    Particulars, petitioner alleged that there were no specific criminal charges
    that were stated in the subpoenas. Thus, petitioner insisted that she cannot
    intelligently prepare her counter-affidavit unless the criminal charges and the
    laws she violated are specified.

    On March 10, 2000, the City Prosecutor issued an Order attaching the
    private complainants’ Bill of Particulars, and directing the petitioner to file
    her counter-affidavit.14 Petitioner filed her counter-affidavit limiting herself
    only to the charges specified in the Bill of Particulars.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the Ombudsman can be bind by the Bill of Particulars


    HELD:

    No. The Ombudsman cannot be bound by the Bill of Particulars


    submitted by private complainants.

    The Court agrees with the OSG. Clearly, the act of the prosecutor in
    granting the petitioner’s Motion for Bill of Particulars is an act contrary to
    the express mandate of A.O. No. 7, to wit: No motion to dismiss shall be
    allowed except for lack of jurisdiction. Neither may a motion for a bill of
    particulars be entertained. If the respondent desires any matter in the
    complainant’s affidavit to be clarified, the particularization thereof may be
    done at the time of clarificatory questioning in the manner provided in
    paragraph (f) of this section.
    Consequently, in the present case, petitioner has no valid basis for
    insisting that the Ombudsman-Visayas must be bound by the erroneous act
    of the City Prosecutor in granting petitioner’s Motion for Bill of Particulars.
    Laws and jurisprudence grant the Office of the Ombudsman the authority to
    reverse or nullify the acts of the prosecutor pursuant to its power of control
    and supervision over deputized prosecutors. Hence, it was within the
    prerogative of the Ombudsman-Visayas not to consider the Bill of
    Particulars submitted by the private complainants.

    DISPOSITION:

    WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The


    assailed Orders dated September 24, 2002 and December 20, 2002 of the
    Regional Trial Court of Bago City, Branch 62 are SET ASIDE. The case is
    remanded to the trial court for determination whether petitioner was denied
    due process in the conduct of the preliminary investigation.

    SO ORDERED.

    You might also like