Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 506 views

    50 Almonte vs. Vasquez PDF

    Uploaded by

    KJPL_1987
    1) An anonymous letter alleging misuse of funds by the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) was sent to several government offices including the Office of the Ombudsman. 2) The Ombudsman initiated an investigation and issued subpoenas demanding documents from EIIB. 3) The EIIB petitioners argued this violated their right to equal protection under the law. However, the court ruled that the Ombudsman was within its constitutional power to initiate investigations based on anonymous complaints.

    Copyright:

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

    50 Almonte vs. Vasquez PDF

    Uploaded by

    KJPL_1987
    506 views2 pages
    1) An anonymous letter alleging misuse of funds by the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) was sent to several government offices including the Office of the Ombudsman. 2) The Ombudsman initiated an investigation and issued subpoenas demanding documents from EIIB. 3) The EIIB petitioners argued this violated their right to equal protection under the law. However, the court ruled that the Ombudsman was within its constitutional power to initiate investigations based on anonymous complaints.

    Original Title

    50 Almonte vs. Vasquez.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) An anonymous letter alleging misuse of funds by the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) was sent to several government offices including the Office of the Ombudsman. 2) The Ombudsman initiated an investigation and issued subpoenas demanding documents from EIIB. 3) The EIIB petitioners argued this violated their right to equal protection under the law. However, the court ruled that the Ombudsman was within its constitutional power to initiate investigations based on anonymous complaints.

    Copyright:

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

    50 Almonte vs. Vasquez PDF

    Uploaded by

    KJPL_1987
    1) An anonymous letter alleging misuse of funds by the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) was sent to several government offices including the Office of the Ombudsman. 2) The Ombudsman initiated an investigation and issued subpoenas demanding documents from EIIB. 3) The EIIB petitioners argued this violated their right to equal protection under the law. However, the court ruled that the Ombudsman was within its constitutional power to initiate investigations based on anonymous complaints.

    Copyright:

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

    Case Title Almonte vs Vasquez

    GR No. 95367
    Main Topic Equal Protection of the Laws
    Date May 23, 1995

    DOCTRINE
    Equal Protection of the Laws
    FACTS
    The case is a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to annul the subpoena duces
    tecum and orders issued by respondent Ombudsman, requiring petitioners Neria Rogado and
    Elisa 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 whole plantilla of EIIB for
    1988” and to enjoin him from enforcing his orders.

    An anonymous and unsigned letter purportedly written by an employee of the EIIB, was sent
    to the Secretary of Finance, with copies furnished to several government offices, including
    the Office of the Ombudsman.

    In the letter were allegations as to the misuse of funds from the savings of unfulfilled plantilla
    positions, among other forms of corruption and abuse of power.

    As a response to the letter-complaint, petitioner Almonte denied allegations.

    Petitioner Perez also denied the issue for the savings realized from the implementation of E.O.
    No. 127, since the DBM only allotted for the remaining 947 personnel, and that the
    disbursement of funds for the plantilla positions for overt and covert personnel had been
    cleared by COA.

    Jose F. Sano, the Graft Investigation Officer of the Ombudsman’s office found their responses
    unsatisfactory; therefore he asked for authority to conduct an investigation.

    Anticipating the grant of his request, he issued a subpoena to petitioners, compelling them to
    submit their counter-affidavits and the affidavits of their witnesses, as well as subpoena duces
    tecum to the chief of the EIIB’s Accounting Division, ordering him to bring “all documents
    relating to Personal Service Funds for the year 1988 and all evidence, such as vouchers (salary)
    for the whole plantilla of EIIB for 1988.”

    Petitioners then moved to quash the subpoena (which was granted by the Ombudsman since
    no affidavit was filed against petitioners) and the subpoena duces tecum, which was denied,
    since it was directed to the Chief Accountant, petitioner Nerio Rogado.
    In addition, the Ombudsman ordered the Chief of the Records a Section of the EIIB, petitioner
    Elisa Rivera, to produce before the investigator "all documents relating to Personnel Service
    Funds, for the year 1988, and all documents, salary vouchers for the whole plantilla of the EIIB
    for 1988, within ten (10) days from receipt hereof."

    Petitioners filed for a motion of reconsideration, which was denied.


    ISSUE
    Whether or not the petitioners were denied of equal protection of the laws where the
    Ombusdman commenced investigation on the basis of an unverified complaint.
    HELD
    No. there was no violation of petitioners' right to the equal protection of the laws.

    Petitioners complain that "in all forum and tribunals . . . the aggrieved parties . . . can only hale
    respondents via their verified complaints or sworn statements with their identities fully
    disclosed," while in proceedings before the Office of the Ombudsman anonymous letters
    suffice to start an investigation. In the first place, there can be no objection to this procedure
    because it is provided in the Constitution itself. In the second place, it is apparent that in
    permitting the filing of complaints "in any form or manner," the framers of the Constitution
    took into account the well-known reticence of the people which keep them from complaining
    against official wrongdoings. As this Court had occasion to point out, the Office of the
    Ombudsman is different from the other investigatory and prosecutory agencies of the
    government because those subject to its jurisdiction are public officials who, through official
    pressure and influence, can quash, delay or dismiss investigations held against them. On the
    other hand complainants are more often than not poor and simple folk who cannot afford to
    hire lawyers.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED, but it is directed that the inspection of subpoenaed
    documents be made personally in camera by the Ombudsman, and with all the safeguards
    outlined in this decision.

    You might also like