Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 117 views

    Almonte v. Vasquez

    Uploaded by

    Ronnie Rimando
    This case concerns the power of the Office of the Ombudsman to obtain evidence from the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) during an investigation. The Ombudsman issued a subpoena requiring EIIB officials to produce documents related to personnel funds and salaries for 1988. EIIB officials refused and moved to quash the subpoena, claiming privilege. The court ruled that the Ombudsman can order the production of the requested documents, as EIIB's functions do not involve military or diplomatic secrets that could be protected from disclosure under a state privilege claim. No valid claim of privilege was made in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Almonte v. Vasquez

    Uploaded by

    Ronnie Rimando
    117 views2 pages
    This case concerns the power of the Office of the Ombudsman to obtain evidence from the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) during an investigation. The Ombudsman issued a subpoena requiring EIIB officials to produce documents related to personnel funds and salaries for 1988. EIIB officials refused and moved to quash the subpoena, claiming privilege. The court ruled that the Ombudsman can order the production of the requested documents, as EIIB's functions do not involve military or diplomatic secrets that could be protected from disclosure under a state privilege claim. No valid claim of privilege was made in this case.

    Original Description:

    Evidence

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case concerns the power of the Office of the Ombudsman to obtain evidence from the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) during an investigation. The Ombudsman issued a subpoena requiring EIIB officials to produce documents related to personnel funds and salaries for 1988. EIIB officials refused and moved to quash the subpoena, claiming privilege. The court ruled that the Ombudsman can order the production of the requested documents, as EIIB's functions do not involve military or diplomatic secrets that could be protected from disclosure under a state privilege claim. No valid claim of privilege was made in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    117 views2 pages

    Almonte v. Vasquez

    Uploaded by

    Ronnie Rimando
    This case concerns the power of the Office of the Ombudsman to obtain evidence from the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) during an investigation. The Ombudsman issued a subpoena requiring EIIB officials to produce documents related to personnel funds and salaries for 1988. EIIB officials refused and moved to quash the subpoena, claiming privilege. The court ruled that the Ombudsman can order the production of the requested documents, as EIIB's functions do not involve military or diplomatic secrets that could be protected from disclosure under a state privilege claim. No valid claim of privilege was made in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    3.

    Testimonial Evidence

    c. disqualifications

    iv. privileged communications

    Almonte v. Vasquez
    G.R. No. 95367, May 23, 1995

    MENDOZA, J.:

    This case concerns the power of the Office of the Ombudsman to obtain evidence in
    connection with an investigation conducted by it vis--vis the claim of privilege of
    an agency of the Government.

    FACTS:
    This is a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to annul the
    subpoena duces tecum and orders issued by Ombudsman Vasquez, requiring
    petitioners Rogado and Rivera, as chief accountant and record custodian of the
    Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) to produce all documents
    relating to Personal Services Funds for the year 1988 and all evidence, such as
    vouchers (salary) for the plantilla of EIIB for 1988 and to enjoin his orders. The
    subpoena duces tecum was issued in connection with his investigation of an
    anonymous letter alleging that the funds representing savings from unfilled
    positions in the EIIB had been illegally disbursed.

    Petitioners Almonte (former Commissioner of the EIIB) and Perez (Chief of


    the EIIBs Budget and Fiscal Management Division) denied the anomalous activities
    that circulate the EIIB office and they also moved to quash the subpoena and the
    subpoena duces tecum.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not petitioners can be ordered to produce documents relating to
    personal services and salary vouchers of EIIB employers.

    HELD:
    YES. At common law a government privilege against disclosure is recognized
    with respect to state secrets bearing on military, diplomatic and similar matters.
    This privilege is based upon public interest of such paramount importance as in and
    of itself transcending the individual interests of a private citizen, even though, as a
    consequence thereof, the plaintiff cannot enforce his legal rights.

    In the case at bar, there is no claim that military or diplomatic secrets will be
    disclosed by the production of records pertaining to the personnel of the EIIB.
    Indeed, the EIIBs function is the gathering and evaluation of intelligence reports
    and information regarding illegal activities affecting the national economy, such as,
    but not limited to, economic sabotage, smuggling, tax evasion, dollar salting.
    Consequently, while in cases which involve state secrets it may be sufficient to
    determine from the circumstances of the case that there is reasonable danger that
    compulsion of the evidence will expose military matters without compelling
    production, no similar excuse can be made for a privilege resting on other
    considerations.

    You might also like