GEORGE UY, petitioner, v. THE HON.

SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. Nos. 105965-70 - March 20, 2001

FACTS:

Before the Court is the 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 that 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.

The Court stated in its decision dated August 9, 1999:

"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." 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.

ISSUES:

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.

DECISIONS:

Seeking clarification of the foregoing ruling, respondent Ombudsman raises the following points:

“(1) The jurisdiction of the Honorable Sandiganbayan is not parallel to or equated with the broader
jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman;

(2) The phrase "primary jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman over cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan" is not a delimitation of its jurisdiction solely to Sandiganbayan cases; and

(3) The authority of the Office of the Special Prosecutor to prosecute cases before the Sandiganbayan
cannot be confused with the broader investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Office of the
Ombudsman.”
Thus, the matter that needs to be discussed herein is the scope of the power of the Ombudsman to
conduct preliminary investigation and the subsequent prosecution of criminal offenses in the light of the
provisions of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (Republic Act [RA] 6770).

We held that 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.

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.

REASONING:

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.

SEPARATE OPINIONS:

PARDO, J., dissenting:

1 An Act Providing for the Functional and Structural Organization of the Office of the Ombudsman.

7 Quiñon v. Sandiganbayan, supra, Note 5, p. 303.

8 R A. 6770, Section 11(4) (a); Quiñon v. Sandiganbayan, supra, Note 5.

9 160 SCRA 843 [1988].

10 Effective December 1, 2000.

11 Rule 112, Sec. 4, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

12 R. A. No. 6770, Sec. 15 (3).

13 "Ombudsman cases" are those cases cognizable by the regular courts, not falling under the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but which involves "any act or omission of any public official,
employees, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or
inefficient." (R A. 6770, Sec. 15 [1]) Under Administrative Order No. 8, dated November 8, 1990 of the
Office of the Ombudsman, "For purposes of investigation and prosecution, Ombudsman cases involving
criminal offenses may be subdivided into two classes, to wit: those cognizable by the Sandiganbayan,
and (2) those falling under the jurisdiction of the regular courts." (Gozos v. Tac-an, 300 SCRA 265, 275
[1998]).

21 Ruperto G. Martin quoting "The Ombudsman, by Delegate Rodolfo P. Robles of the 1987
Constitutional Convention, p. 1", Law and Jurisprudence on the Freedom Constitution of the Philippines,
1986, Manila, p. 706."
ANALYSIS:

This case is an administrative case, because Uy failed to do his responsibilities as an employee. He