The Ombudsman charged public officers earning less than grade 27 with malversation and violations of the Anti-Graft law. The officers argued the Ombudsman lacked authority to prosecute in regular courts, and the RTC agreed. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the Ombudsman has plenary power to investigate and prosecute any public officer in any court where evidence warrants. The Ombudsman's primary jurisdiction over cases under the Sandiganbayan does not preclude other cases. The RTC was ordered to proceed with the trial.
The Ombudsman charged public officers earning less than grade 27 with malversation and violations of the Anti-Graft law. The officers argued the Ombudsman lacked authority to prosecute in regular courts, and the RTC agreed. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the Ombudsman has plenary power to investigate and prosecute any public officer in any court where evidence warrants. The Ombudsman's primary jurisdiction over cases under the Sandiganbayan does not preclude other cases. The RTC was ordered to proceed with the trial.
Original Description:
Case Digest for Office of the Ombudsman v. ENOC by Trixie Peralta
The Ombudsman charged public officers earning less than grade 27 with malversation and violations of the Anti-Graft law. The officers argued the Ombudsman lacked authority to prosecute in regular courts, and the RTC agreed. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the Ombudsman has plenary power to investigate and prosecute any public officer in any court where evidence warrants. The Ombudsman's primary jurisdiction over cases under the Sandiganbayan does not preclude other cases. The RTC was ordered to proceed with the trial.
The Ombudsman charged public officers earning less than grade 27 with malversation and violations of the Anti-Graft law. The officers argued the Ombudsman lacked authority to prosecute in regular courts, and the RTC agreed. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the Ombudsman has plenary power to investigate and prosecute any public officer in any court where evidence warrants. The Ombudsman's primary jurisdiction over cases under the Sandiganbayan does not preclude other cases. The RTC was ordered to proceed with the trial.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN V.
ENOC
Summary: The Ombudsman charged respondent public officers (with salaries below grade 27) with malversation and violation of RA 3019 before the regular courts. They filed a motion to quash arguing that the Ombudsman does not have the authority to do so. RTC granted motion; SC reversed and ordered RTC to proceed with the case.
Doctrine: The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. It includes the authority to act on all complaints against officers and employees of the government and to enforce their administrative, civil, and criminal liability in ever case where the evidence warrants.
Facts: Petition for review on certiorari Respondents were employed in various positions at the Office of the Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC) with salaries below grade 27. They were charged with 11 counts of malversation through falsification, based on alleged purchases of medicine and food assistance for cultural community members, and 1 count of violation of RA 3019, in connection with the purchases of supplies for the OSCC without bidding and canvass. The Ombudsman filed informations against them before the RTC. The respondents moved to quash these, arguing that the Ombudsman has no authority to prosecute graft cases falling within the jurisdiction of regular courts (held in Uy v. Villanueva). The RTC granted the motion to quash and dismissed the case without prejudice to refiling. Hence, the instant petition.
Issues and Held:
WoN the RTC erred in holding that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate, file informations, and prosecute cases before the regular courts- YES. o The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. It pertains to any act or omission of any public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. o RA 6770 gives the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. Primary jurisdiction- authorizing the Ombudsman to take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of the government, the investigation of such cases; such does not necessarily imply the exclusion from its jurisdiction of cases involving public officers and employees cognizable by other courts. o 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. o Jurisdiction of Office of the Ombudsman is not the same as the jurisdiction of the Office of the Special Prosecutor. The latter is merely a component of the former, and its power to conduct preliminary investigation and to prosecute is limited to criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. o 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 ever case where the evidence warrants.
Ruling: Petition granted; RTC ordered to proceed with trial.
