Uy Vs Sandiganbayan

George Uy vs. The Hon. Sandiganbayan, The Hon. Ombudsman and The Hon.
Roger C. Berbano, Sr., Special Prosecution Officer III, Office of the Special
Prosecutor, G.R. Nos. 105965-70, March 20, 2001
Facts:
Uy, who was Deputy Comptroller of the Philippine navy and designated as Assistant Chief
of Naval Staff for Comptrollership was charged with estafa through falsification of official
documents and violation of RA 3019. The petitioner filed a motion to quash, arguing that
the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the offense charged and that the
Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor had no authority to file the offense.
The court ruled that:
1. It is the court-martial, not the Sandiganbayan, which has jurisdiction to try petitioner
since he was a regular officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and fell squarely
under Article 2 of the Articles of War mentioned in Section 1(b) of P.D. 1850, “Providing
for the trial by courts-martial of members of the Integrated National Police and further
defining the jurisdiction of courts-martial over members of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines”
2. As to the violations of Republic Act No. 3019, the petitioner does not fall within the
“rank” requirement stated in Section 4 of the Sandiganbayan Law, thus, exclusive
jurisdiction over petitioner is vested in the regular courts , as amended by R.A. No. 8249,
which states that “In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions
corresponding to Salary Grade ‘27’ or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No.
6758, or military and PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof
shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial
court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective
jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.”
In this connection, it is the prosecutor, not the Ombudsman, who has the authority to file
the corresponding information/s against petitioner in the regional trial court. The
Ombudsman exercises prosecutorial powers only in cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan. In February 20, 2000, a motion for clarification which in fact appeared to
be a partial motion for reconsideration was filed by the Ombudsman and the Special
Prosecutor filed, which was denied. The instant case is a Motion for Further Clarification
filed by Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto of the Court's ruling in its decision dated August
9, 1999 and resolution dated February 22, 2000.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the prosecutory power of the Ombudsman extends only to cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and that the Ombudsman has no authority to prosecute
cases falling within the jurisdiction of regular courts.
Ruling:
No. The Ombudsman is clothed with authority to conduct preliminary investigation and to
prosecute all criminal cases involving public officers and employees, not only those within
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, but those within the jurisdiction of the regular courts
as well. 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. The law
does not make a distinction between cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and those
cognizable by regular courts. It has been held that the clause "any illegal act or omission
of any public official" is broad enough to embrace all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance
and non-feasance committed by public officers and employees during their tenure of
office.
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. The prosecution
of offenses committed by public officers and employees is one of the most important
functions of the Ombudsman. In passing RA 6770, the Congress deliberately endowed
the Ombudsman with such power to make him a more active and effective agent of the
people in ensuring accountability in public office.
Even a perusal of the law (PD 1630) originally creating the Office of the Ombudsman then
(to be known as the Tanodbayan), and the amendatory laws issued subsequent thereto
will show that, at its inception, the Office of the Ombudsman was already vested with the
power to investigate and prosecute civil and criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan
and even the regular courts.

Uy Vs Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uy Vs Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uy Vs Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

George Uy vs. The Hon. Sandiganbayan, The Hon. Ombudsman and The Hon.

The court ruled that:

You might also like