Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
TRANQUIL SALVADOR
G.R. No. 163586 RTC denied the Motion to Quash, recognizing the authority of the
Ombudsman in the case. RTC cited the Resolution of Uy vs.
CASTRO vs. DALORIA Sandiganbayan in 2001 which reversed the original decision in Uy vs.
January 27, 2009 Sanidganbayan 1999, and expressly recognizing the prosecutorial and
Austria-Martinez, J. investigatory authority of the Ombudsman in cases cognizable by the
RTC.
Petitioner:
Sharon Castro
Respondents: ISSUES:
RTC Judge Hon. Merlin Deloria, CA 1. W/N the Ombudsman had the authority to file a case against
petitioner, as of May 31, 2001, in the light of the FIRST
CASE SUMMARY: DECISION in the Uy vs. Sandiganbayan case (1999), which
Sharon Castro was a BIR Officer in Guimaras who was charged with Malversation of
limited the powers of the Ombudsman.
Public Funds, misappropriating worth P556,000. The Ombudsman was tasked to
prosecute her, but she questioned the authority of the Ombudsman, citing the original
decision of Uy vs. Sandiganbayan decided in 1999 which held that the Ombudsman had 2. W/N the Resolution of the Uy vs. Sandiganbayan case (2001)
no prosecutorial powers over cases cognizable by RTC. violates the constitutional provisions against ex-post facto laws
and the denial of due process.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman’s powers were plenary and unqualified,
covering all offending “public officers”, and that the later Resolution of the Uy case
prevailed, curing the restrictive defect in the Ombudsman’s powers.
HELD:
Castelo Chan-Gonzaga Evardone Gacutan Gana Gutierrez Lopez Miclat Mercado Tan Torres Valdez Varela
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS (2013 – 2014) ATTY. TRANQUIL SALVADOR
her was void because at that time, the Ombudsman had no authority it to reveal the true intent of the lawmakers. Therefore, the Resolution
over her case. of the Court in Uy interpreting the Ombudsman Act is part of the law
dated December 7, 1989. “Where no law is invalidated nor doctrine
The Court finds no merit in her petition. abandoned, a judicial interpretation of the law should be deemed
incorporated at the moment of its legislation”. The Resolution in Uy set
1. The Ombudsman’s prosecutorial powers are PLENARY and aside an erroneous pubescent interpretation of the Ombudsman Act
UNQUALIFIED. manifested in Uy vs. Sandiganbayan (1999).
Time and time again, the Court has held that the Ombudsman has
power to prosecute not only graft cases within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan but also cases within the jurisdiction of the regional trial FINAL VERDICT:
courts. The powers of the Ombudsman are plenary and unqualified.
(Office of the Ombudsman vs. Enoc) Case DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The clause “any illegal act or omission of any public official” is broad
enough to embrace the any crime committed by a public officer or
employee is within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to prosecute.
Castelo Chan-Gonzaga Evardone Gacutan Gana Gutierrez Lopez Miclat Mercado Tan Torres Valdez Varela