GR 126858; (September, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 126858 September 16, 2005
JOSE U. ONG and NELLY M. ONG, Petitioners, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Respondents.
FACTS
A petition for forfeiture was filed against petitioner Jose U. Ong, then Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, under Republic Act No. 1379, alleging he acquired multiple high-value real properties manifestly disproportionate to his government salary. The Office of the Ombudsman conducted a preliminary inquiry, directing Ong to submit evidence explaining the sources of funds for the acquisitions. Ong submitted a counter-affidavit citing a bank loan and retirement benefits. The Ombudsman, however, found that subpoenaed entities could not produce documents to corroborate these claims and subsequently filed the forfeiture petition with the Sandiganbayan. Petitioners moved to dismiss, arguing the Ombudsman lacked authority to initiate forfeiture cases and that the petition was filed without a prior “preliminary inquiry” as mandated by RA 1379. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Office of the Ombudsman has the legal authority to initiate and prosecute a petition for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired property under RA 1379.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled affirmatively, dismissing the petition. The legal logic rests on the Ombudsman’s broad constitutional and statutory mandate. The Constitution empowers the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of a public officer that appears illegal. This grant of authority is plenary and unqualified. Republic Act No. 6770, the Ombudsman Act, explicitly provides that the Office of the Ombudsman has the power to investigate and prosecute any illegal act or omission of any public official. A petition for forfeiture under RA 1379 is a civil action that is inherently prosecutorial in character, as it seeks to prove that property was unlawfully acquired. Therefore, it falls squarely within the Ombudsman’s investigative and prosecutorial powers. The Court clarified that the authority to prosecute under RA 6770 is not limited to criminal actions but encompasses this special civil forfeiture proceeding. The preliminary steps taken by the Ombudsman, including the order for Ong to submit evidence, constituted the requisite preliminary inquiry under the law. The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss.