1. Jarque vs. Desierto- ????

2. Francisco vs. HR
Facts:
2 impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Davide first one is filed by President Erap on
June 02 2003 for culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust and other high
crimes. The house committee on justice ruled that it was insufficient in substance and thereafter
voted to dismiss the same. The second impeachment complaint was filed by Representative
Gilberto Teodoro on October 23 2003.
Issue: WON the second impeachment complaint is barred under secton 3(5) Article XI of the
Constitution (One impeachment rule per year)

Ruling:

It falls within the one year bar provided in the Constitution.

Considering that the first impeachment complaint, was filed by former President Estrada against
Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., along with seven associate justices of this Court, on June 2,
2003 and referred to the House Committee on Justice on August 5, 2003, the second
impeachment complaint filed by Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William
Fuentebella against the Chief Justice on October 23, 2003 violates the constitutional prohibition
against the initiation of impeachment proceedings against the same impeachable officer within a
one-year period.

3. Gutierrez vs. House Committee on Justice

Facts:
2 impeachment complaint again against Ombudsman Mercedita Gutierez, first is filed by
Baraquel etal on July 22, 2010 for betrayal of public trust and and culpable violation of the
Constitution. The second complaint was filed by Reyes Etal on August 03, 2010. Both
complaints were referred to the house committee on August 11, 2010 at the same time. On
September 01, 2010 the House Comitte on Justice found the two complaints sufficient in form.
On September 13, 2010 Petitioner filed a petion for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme
Court seeking to enjoin the Committee on Justice from proceeding with the impeachment
proceedings.
Issue: WON The Supreme Court has the power to determine WON the House Committee on
Justice committed grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling:
Under the doctrine of expanded Judicial Review, The Constitution did not intend to
leave the matter of Impeachment to the sole discretion of the Congress instead, it
provides for certain well defined limits or in the language of Baker vs. Carr,
Judicially discoverable standards for determining the validity of the exercise of
such discretion, through the power of Judicial review.
Indubitably the court is not asserting its ascendancy over the Legislature in this
instance, but the supremacy of the Constitution.

4. Binay vs Sandiganbayan
Facts:
Cases were filed by the ombudsman in the Sandiganbayan against Mayor Binay of
Makati for illegal use of public funds and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act on September 1994. Meanwhile RA 7975 as passed redefining the jurisdiction of SB
took effect on 1995. Mayor Binay filed a motion to refer his case to the RTC of Makati
alleging that SB has no jurisdiction over sid cases. SB denied the same hence this petition.
Issue: WON SB has jurisdiction over the case after the passage of RA 7975?
Ruling: Yes RA 7975 which was further amended by RA 8249 states that the SB shall
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving RA 3019 Anti Graft, where one
or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the Government,
whether in a permanent, acting, or interim capacity at the time of the commission of the
offense: a. Officials of the Executive Branch occupying the positions of regional director and
higher, otherwise classified as grade 27 and higher of the Compesation and Position
Classification Act of 1989.
Under the said law, Mayors are local officials classified as grade 27 and higher.
5. Bolastig vs Sandiganbayan

Facts: Antonio M. Bolastig is the Governor of Samar. Information were filed agains him
and two others for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Sandiganbayan
upon mtion of the special prosecutor suspended Bolastig for a period of 90 days with the
strength of section 13 of the anti-graft law which provides for the preventive suspension
of public officers if they are under criminal prosecution. The petitioner contends the said
suspension hence this petition.

Issue: WON SB is correct in suspending Bolastig?

Ruling: Yes, Sec 13 of RA 3019 Anti Graft makes it mandatory for the SB to suspemd
any public officer against whom a valid information charging a violation of the law .
 6. Buensaneda Vs. Flavier

In 1992, the NCMH Nurses Association (NCMH) filed a case of graft and corruption against Dr.
Brigida Buenaseda and several other government officials of the Department of Health (DOH).
The Ombudsman (then Conrado Vasquez), ordered the suspension of Buenaseda et al. The
suspension was carried on by then DOH Secretary Juan Flavier, being the officer in charge over
Buenaseda et al. Buenaseda et al then filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari,
prohibition, and mandamus, questioning the suspension order. NCMH submitted its Comment on
the Petition where they attached a Motion for Disbarment against the lawyers of Buenaseda et al.
Allegedly, the lawyers of Buenaseda et al advised them not to obey the suspension order, which is
a lawful order from a duly constituted authority. NCMH maintains that such advice from the
lawyers constitute a violation against the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Solicitor General, commenting on the case, agreed with Buenasedas lawyers as he maintained
that all the Ombudsman can do is to recommend suspensions not impose them. The Sol-Gen based
his argument on Section 13 (3) of the 1987 Constitution which provides that the Office of the
Ombudsman shall have inter alia the power, function, and duty to:
Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or employee at
fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure or prosecution, and
ensure compliance therewith.
ISSUES: Whether or not the Ombudsman has the power to suspend government officials. Whether
or not a Motion for Disbarment may be filed in a special civil action.
HELD: Yes, the Ombudsman may impose suspension orders. The Supreme Court clarifies that
what the Ombudsman issued is an order of preventive suspension pending the resolution of the
case or investigation thereof. It is not imposing suspension as a penalty (not punitive suspension).
What the Constitution contemplates that the Ombudsman may recommend are punitive
suspensions.
Anent the issue of the Motion for Disbarment filed with the Ombudsman, the same is not proper.
It cannot be filed in this special civil action which is confined to questions of jurisdiction or abuse
of discretion for the purpose of relieving persons from the arbitrary acts of judges and quasi-
judicial officers. There is a set of procedure for the discipline of members of the bar separate and
apart from the present special civil action. However, the lawyers of Buenaseda were reminded not
be carried away in espousing their clients cause. The language of a lawyer, both oral or written,
must be respectful and restrained in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession and with his
behavioral attitude toward his brethren in the profession.

7. PDIC vs. Casimiro

The instant case arose from a Joint-Affidavit4 dated June 18, 2010 filed by petitioner
Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), through its duly-authorized officers,
Alexander N. Dojillo and Israel A. Bandoy, charging private respondents of the crimes of
Direct Bribery and Corruption of Public Officials, defined and penalized under Articles
210 and 212 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), respectively, as well as violation of
Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, entitled the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. Specifically, private respondents were being sued in the following
capacities: (a) Cu (together with members of his family) as the 85.99% owner of Bicol
Development Bank, Inc. (BDBI); (b) Zate as Chairman/President of BDBI; and (c) Apelo
as a former employee of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) who acted as the Bank
Officer-In-Charge that examined BDBI's books and records as of September 30, 2001,
and as one of the assistants of Bank Officer-In-Charge Evangeline C. Velasquez in
connection with the Reports of Examination of BDBI's books and records as of August
31, 2000 and October 31, 2002.5

The Joint-Affidavit averred that on December 22, 2008, PDIC, acting as statutory
receiver, took over the affairs of BDBI after the BSP Monetary Board ordered its closure.
As statutory receiver, PDIC purposedly went on to gather, preserve, and administer its
records, assets, and liabilities for the benefit of its depositors and creditors. In the course
of the receivership, Arsenia T. Gomez (Gomez) - a former Cashier, Service Officer, and
Treasurer of BDBI until its closure - went to the PDIC and submitted an Affidavit6 dated
January 12, 2010 outlining the alleged irregularities committed by private respondents
when BDBI was still in operation.7

According to Gomez, on November 16, 2006, Cu instructed her to take money from the
vault in the amount of P30,000.00 and to deposit the same to Apelo's bank account in
Philippine National Bank - Legazpi City Branch under Account Number 224-521-
5625.8 When Gomez asked for the reason, Cu replied "Professional Fee natin sa kanya
yan" On further orders/directives from Cu and Zate, additional deposits were made to
Apelo's bank account on two (2) separate dates, specifically April 20, 2007 and October
3, 2007, in the respective amounts of P60,000.00 and P50,000.00. After the deposits were
made, Gomez was initially instructed to cover the unofficial and unbooked cash
disbursements in favor of Apelo by placing such amounts in BDBI's books as "Other
Cash Items;" and thereafter, to regularize and remove from BDBI's books such
disbursements by including them in the other accounts of BDBI until they were
completely covered.9 To bolster her allegations, Gomez attached copies of deposit slips
and official receipts to show that such deposits were indeed made to Apelo's bank
accounts.10

In this regard, Gomez averred that in the course of her employment with BDBI, she does
not know of any official or legitimate transactions that would warrant BDBI to disburse
the aforesaid amounts in favor of Apelo. However, speaking from personal experience,
Gomez noticed that Cu would always receive an "advance warning" about a surprise
examination on BDBI by BSP. During such time and until the actual arrival of the BSP
examiner, Cu would instruct BDBI employees on how to cover the possible
findings/exceptions of the BSP examiner on the books of BDBI. In addition, Cu shall
deliver cash in BDBFs vault in order to make it appear that the cash listed in the books
reflect the actual cash in vault; and after such examination, Cu will take the cash he
 delivered to BDBFs vault and return it to the source.11

In view of Gomez's revelations, PDIC decided to file the instant criminal complaint
against private respondents.

In his defense, Cu denied having ordered or instructed Gomez to make such deposits to
Apelo's bank account. He pointed to the lack of evidence to prove that Apelo was aware
or made aware of any alleged bank deposits made to her bank account, thus, negating the
charge of Direct Bribery against her and Corruption of Public Officials against him. For
her part, Zate likewise denied the allegations hurled against her, countering that Gomez's
statements should not be relied upon for being unfounded. Apelo did not file any counter-
affidavit despite the Ombudsman's orders.

The Ombudsman dismissed the criminal complaint for lack of probable cause.

Issue: The Issue Before the Court

The primordial issue raised for the Court's resolution is whether or not the Omibudsman gravely
abused its discretion in finding no probable cause to indict private respondents of the crimes
charged.chanrobleslaw

The Court's Ruling

The petition is meritorious.

At the outset, it must be stressed that the Court has consistently refrained from interfering with
the discretion of the Ombudsman to determine the existence of probable cause and to decide
whether or not an Information should be filed. Nonetheless, this Court is not precluded from
reviewing the Ombudsman's action when there is a charge of grave abuse of discretion. Grave
abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack
of jurisdiction. The Ombudsman's exercise of power must have been done in an arbitrary or
despotic manner which must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty
or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.19 The
Court's pronouncement in Ciron v. Gutierrez20 is instructive on this matter, to
wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

x x x this Court's consistent policy has been to maintain noninterference in the determination
of the Ombudsman of the existence of probable cause, provided there is no grave abuse in
the exercise of such discretion. This observed policy is based not only on respect for the
investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the
Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the Court will be
seriously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings
conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, in much the
same way that the courts would be extremely swamped with cases if they could be compelled to
review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they
decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant.21(Emphasis
and underscoring supplied)ChanRo