July 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 146065 : July 13, 2011]
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN V. AIDA ACURIN, JOYCE OMAMALIN, AND JANETTE SOLIVA
G.R. No. 146065[*] (Office of the Ombudsman v. Aida Acurin, Joyce Omamalin, and Janette Soliva).
RESOLUTION
On December 28, 1999 petitioner Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) issued a Resolution,[1] finding probable cause against respondents Aida Acurin (Clerk I), Joyce Omamalin (Accounting Section Chief), and Janette Soliva (Checks Releasing Officer) of the Department of Education Culture and Sports, Dipolog City, and Jefferson Young, Rosita Villanueva, and a certain Vallecer for violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) 3019.[2] Consequently, on even date the Ombudsman filed the corresponding information[3] against them before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dipolog City.[4]
On August 21, 2000, however, relying on the Court's ruling in Uy v. Sandiganbayan[5] that the Ombudsman has no authority to investigate and prosecute cases cognizable by regional trial courts, the RTC dismissed the criminal cases against the respondents. It denied on November 7, 2000 the Ombudsman's motion for reconsideration and, more, it dismissed similar informations that the Ombudsman filed with that court.[6] These prompted the Ombudsman to come directly to this Court by petition for review.
The Ombudsman insists that its power to investigate and institute criminal cases extends not only to those cognizable by the Sandiganbayan but also to those cognizable by the regional trial courts.
The Court required respondents to comment but, despite several notices,[7] respondents Acurin, Omamalin, and Soliva[8] did not do so, compelling the Court to consider the case submitted for resolution based solely on the Ombudsman's petition.
Meantime, the Court set aside its August 9, 1999 decision and February 22, 2000 resolution in Uy v. Sandiganbayan,[9] upon which the RTC relied in dismissing the subject cases. The Court held that the power of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute public officials for violation of R.A. 3019 applies to cases cognizable, not only by the Sandiganbayan, but by the regional trial courts as well.[10] The Court subsequently reiterated this ruling in other cases.[11] With these developments, the RTC's orders of dismissal of the subject actions against respondents and the others in the related cases no longer have a leg to stand on.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition and SETS ASIDE the Resolution dated August 21, 2000 and Order dated November 7, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City in Criminal Cases 9640 to 9650 and 9654 to 9672.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[*] J. Peralta, on official leave. J. Carpio, additional member, per Special Order 1029 dated June 30, 2011; J. Sereno, additional member, per Special Order 1028 dated June 21, 2011.[1] Issued in relation to Case OMB-MIN-97-0075 entitled: "National Bureau of Investigation v. Aida Acurin et al."
[2] Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
[3] Docketed as Criminal Cases 9640 to 9650 and 9654 to 9672 all entitled "People of the Philippines v Aida Acurin et al."
[4] Branch 9.
[5] 371 Phil. 1, 16 (1999).
[6] The following criminal cases were dismissed: Criminal Cases 9116, 9201 and 9202 entitled "People v. Rodelin Eguia"; Criminal Case 9114 entitled "People v. Rosemarie Baes"; Criminal Case 9108 entitled "People v. Nevil Paculanang"; Criminal Cases 9092, 9144, 9210 entitled "People v. Arturo M. Galicia, Jr."; Criminal Case 9215 entitled "People v. Leo Maghamil�; Criminal Case 9211 entitled "People v. Danilo Tiu"; Criminal Case 9091 entitled "People v. Fernando V. Orlina"; Criminal Case 9109 entitled "People v. Sergio Balais�; Criminal Cases 9102, 9198, 9199 and 9200 entitled "People v. Elena Matunog"; Criminal Cases 8073 to 8076, 8079 entitled "People v. Editha Saguin, et al."; Criminal Cases 8525 to 8532 entitled "People v. Regie P. Tiu"; Criminal Cases 8533 to 8535 entitled "People v. Regie Tiu, et al.�; Criminal Cases 9315, 9318 to 9321, 9323, 9324 entitled "People v. Omar Aranan, et al."; Criminal Cases 9325 to 9330, 9332 to 9334 entitled "People v. Anita Cabrera, et al.�; Criminal Case 9323 entitled "People v. Avelina E. Eguia, et al.�; Criminal Cases 9331, 9335 to 9342 entitled "People v. Avelina E. Eguia, et al.�; and Criminal Cases 9320, 9331, 9335, etc. entitled "People v. Aida Acurin, et al."
[7] As a matter of fact, Acurin was twice fined by the Court amounting to P1,000.00 and P500.00 for her failure to file a comment and to inform the Court of the address of Soliva, respectively (Resolutions dated January 16, 2006 and August 24, 2009). While Omamalin was also fined P500.00 for her failure to inform the Court of the address of Soliva, per the Court's Resolution dated August 24, 2009. Also, the records do not show whether both Acurin and Omamalin have paid the imposed fines.
[8] Respondents Young and Villanueva were dropped as party-respondents in this case per Resolution dated July 14, 2003 while the identity and residence of Mr. Vallecer remained to be a mystery even to the Ombudsman,
[9] Supra note 5.
[10] Uy v. Sandiganbayan, 407 Phil. 154, 172-173(2001).
[11] Office of the Ombudsman v. Enoc, 425 Phil. 553, 556-557 (2002), Castro v. Deloria, G.R No 163586 January 27, 2009, 577 SCRA 20, 25.