Case 9 Almonte V Vasquez

Case 9
Commissioner Almonte v Hon. Vasquez (Ombudsman)
Facts:
 petitioners Nerio Rogado and Elisa Rivera, as chief accountant and record custodian,
respectively, of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) files petition
for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to annul the subpoena duces tecum (to
appear in court and produce documents) requiring them to produce "all documents
relating to Personal Services Funds and all evidence such as vouchers (salary) for
the whole plantilla of EIIB
 The subpoena duces tecum was issued by the Ombudsman in connection with his
investigation of an anonymous letter alleging that funds representing savings from
unfilled positions in the EIIB had been illegally disbursed. The letter, purporting to
have been written by an employee of the EIIB and a concerned citizen, was addressed to
the Secretary of Finance, with copies furnished several government offices, including the
Office of the Ombudsman.
 Petitioner Almonte denied that as a result of the separation of personnel, the EIIB had
made some savings. He averred that the only funds released to his agency by the
Department of Budget and Management (DBM) were those corresponding to 947
plantilla positions which were filled. He also denied that there were "ghost agents" in the
EIIB and claimed that disbursements for "open" and "closed" (plantillas of the agency had
been cleared by the Commission on Audit (COA)
 Perez, budget chief of the EIIB, denied in his comment that savings had been realized from
the implementation of E.O. No. 127, since the DBM provided allocations for only the
remaining 947 personnel. He said that the disbursement of funds for the plantilla
positions for "overt" and "covert" personnel had been cleared by the COA and that the
high-powered rearms had been issued for the protection of EIIB personnel attending
court hearings and the Finance Ocer in withdrawing funds from the banks
 The Graft Investigation Officer of the Ombudsman’s Office, found comments

unsatisfactory, being "unverified and plying only on generalizations without meeting
specifically the points raised by complainant as constitutive of the alleged anomalies. He
conducts a preliminary investigation and required Almonte and Perez to submit their
affidavits as well as a subpoena duces tecum.
 Respondents file motion to quash, granted by Ombudsman, except the subpoena tecum,
directed against Chief Accountant Nerio and Rivera, to produce all documents relating to
Personnel Service Funds documents, salary vouchers for the whole plantilla of the EIIB
 Amonte and Perez moved for reconsideration, was denied. Appeals to SC
Issue: 1.) WON a subpoena duces tecum may be issued based on an unverfiried complaint
2.) WON the required documents to be produced are beyond the reach of subpoena duces
tecum
Ruling: PETITION IS DISMISSED. but it is directed that the inspection of subpoenaed
documents be made personally in c a m e r a by the Ombudsman, and with all the
safeguards outlined in this decision.
Petitioners contend equal protection was violated since in all tribunals, forms, aggrieved
parties may only hale respondents when their complaints are verified and identities
disclosed
1. It does not, a formal complaint was not necessary, because a testimony and charges
made in a pleading in a case in court constituted a sufficient basis for the
Ombudsman to commence investigation. A reconciliation is thereby made
between the demands of national security and the requirement of accountability
enshrined in the Constitution
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 ocials who, through ocial pressure and inuence, can quash, delay or
dismiss investigations held against them.
2. Disclosure of the documents in question is resisted on the ground that "knowledge of

EIIB's documents relative to its Personal Services Funds and its plantilla . . . will
necessarily [lead to] knowledge of its operations, movements, targets, strategies, and
tactics and the whole of its being" and this could "destroy the EIIB. Cannot prosper, 2
instances wherein privilege against disclosure may prosper
-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. MOREOVER, OMBUDSMAN MAY INVESTIGATE AS LONG AS
INVESTIGATION IS DONE ‘IN CAMERA’ (PRIVATE)
PRIVILEGE OF STATE SECRET MAY BE INVOKED ONLY when there is a reasonable

danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose military matters which, in the
interest of national security, should not be divulge. OR if the disclosure of the
President’s conversations is necessary based on diplomatic grounds
EIIB's 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. Personnel records of EIIB are
not classified information
 The other statutes and regulations invoked by petitioners in support of their
contention that the documents sought in the subpoena duces of the Ombudsman are
classified merely indicate the confidential nature of the EIIB's functions, but they do
not exempt the EIIB from the duty to account for its funds to the proper authorities
If, as petitioners claim, the subpoenaed records have been examined by the COA and
found by it to be regular in all respects, there is no reason why they cannot be shown to
another agency of the government which by constitutional mandate is required to look into
any complaint concerning public office.

Case 9 Almonte V Vasquez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 9 Almonte V Vasquez

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Case 9 Almonte V Vasquez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 9

Commissioner Almonte v Hon. Vasquez (Ombudsman)

 The Graft Investigation Officer of the Ombudsman’s Office, found comments

2. Disclosure of the documents in question is resisted on the ground that "knowledge of

-privilege against disclosure is recognized with respect to state secrets bearing on

PRIVILEGE OF STATE SECRET MAY BE INVOKED ONLY when there is a reasonable

You might also like