Lastimosa v.

Vasquez [Prosecutor’s Assistance]

243 SCRA 497, April 6, 1995

FACTS: Jessica Villacarlos Dayon is a public health nurse of Santa Fe, Cebu and on 1993, she filed
a criminal complaint for frustrated rape and an administrative complaint for immoral acts, abuse of
authority, and grave misconduct against Rogelio Ilustrisimo, the Municipal Mayor of Sante Fe. This
was assigned to a graft investigation officer who found no prima facie evidence and recommended its
dismissal after an investigation. However, Hon. Vasquez, the Ombudsman, disapproved the
recommendation and directed the mayor to be charged with attempted rape in the RTC.

Arturo Mojica, the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas, referred the case to Cebu Provincial Prosecutor
Oliveros Kintanar to file the appropriate information with the RTC of Danao City.The case then got
assigned to Gloria Lastimosa, the First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu, and she conducted a
preliminary investigation and later on filed an information for acts of lasciviousness against Mayor
Ilustrisimo with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Santa Fe. Deput Ombudsamn Mojica then inquired
on the directive of the Ombudsman to charge Mayor Ilustrisimo with attempted rape.

As no case for attempted rape had been filed by the Prosecutors Office, Deputy Ombudsman Mojica
ordered Provincial Prosecutor Kintanar and Lastimosa to show cause why they should not be
punished for contempt for "refusing and failing to obey the lawful directives" of the Office of the
Ombudsman. A hearing was set for this and it appeared that 2 cases had already been filed against
the 2 prosecutors with the Office of the Ombudsman by Julian Menchavez, a resident of Cebu, based
on the alleged refusal of petitioner and Kintanar to obey the orders of the Ombudsman to charge
Mayor Ilustrisimo with attempted rape. One was an administrative complaint for violation of Republic
Act No. 6713 and P.D. No. 807 (the Civil Service Law) 10 and another one was a criminal complaint
for violation of §3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and Art. 208 of the Revised Penal Code. Mojica placed
Lastimosa and Kintanar under preventive suspension for a period of six (6) months.

ISSUE: Can the Office of the Ombudsman call on the Provincial Prosecutor to assist it in the
prosecution of the case for attempted rape against Mayor Ilustrisimo? [YES]

RULING: The Court held that the Ombudsman may seek for their assistance and that those who were
designated to assist him shall be under his supervision and control.

Petitioner contends that the preparation and filing of the information were part and parcel of the
preliminary investigation assumed by the Office of the Ombudsman and the filing of information in
court could not be delegated by it to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. She also argues that the
Office of the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the case against the mayor because the crime
involved was not committed in relation to a public office. Hence, he has no authority to place her and
Provincial Prosecutor Kintanar under preventive suspension for refusing to follow his orders and to
cite them for indirect contempt for such refusal.
However, the Court held that the Office of the Ombudsman has the power to "investigate and
prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or
employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or
inefficient." This power has been held to include the investigation and prosecution of any crime
committed by a public official regardless of whether the acts or omissions complained of are related
to, or connected with, or arise from, the performance of his official duty. It is enough that the act or
omission was committed by a public official. Hence, it is within the power of the Ombudsman to
investigate and prosecute a crime of attempted rape committed by the mayor who is a public official.

In the exercise of his power, the Ombudsman is authorized to call on prosecutors for assistance.
Section 31 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (RA 6770) provides that those designated to assist the
Ombudsman shall be under his supervision and control. It also does not matter if the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor have already conducted a preliminary investigation and that they only needed to
file the case in court because the determination of the nature of the offense to be charge would still be
subject to the approval of the Ombudsman. For under Section 31 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989,
when a prosecutor is deputized, he is subject to the power of the Ombudsman to direct, review,
approve, reverse, or modify his decision. They could not have acted on their own and refuse to
prepare and file the information as directed by the Ombudsman.