GR 145938; (February, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 145938 . February 10, 2006. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE AUGUSTO V. BREVA, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Davao City, Branch 10, ERNESTO SALVADOR and GUILLERMO SALDAÑA, Respondents.
FACTS
The Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao, after investigation, found sufficient evidence to prosecute public respondents Ernesto Salvador and Guillermo Saldaña, employees of the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Davao City, for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Ombudsman’s graft investigation officer issued a resolution with a draft Information, which was endorsed to the City Prosecutor of Davao. The City Prosecutor subsequently filed the Information with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), where it was docketed as a criminal case. The accused filed a Motion to Quash, arguing that under the Supreme Court’s ruling in George Uy v. Sandiganbayan, the Ombudsman lacked authority to file the Information in a regular court, as its prosecutorial power was limited to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
The RTC granted the Motion to Quash and dismissed the case, relying on the George Uy decision which stated that the authority to file informations in regular courts lies with the public prosecutor, not the Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman filed this petition for certiorari, seeking to annul the RTC’s orders of dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman possessed the authority to file the criminal Information for violation of R.A. No. 3019 with the Regional Trial Court.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the RTC’s orders. The legal logic is anchored on the Court’s subsequent clarificatory resolution in the very same George Uy case, issued on March 20, 2001. This later resolution explicitly superseded the earlier pronouncements and established that the Ombudsman retains the authority to prosecute criminal cases before regular courts, not just before the Sandiganbayan. The Court clarified that Section 15 of R.A. No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act) grants the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, but this does not divest it of its concurrent authority to prosecute offenses involving public officers under Section 11(4)(a) of the same law, which includes cases falling under the jurisdiction of regular courts.
Consequently, the RTC’s dismissal of the case, while arguably based on the prevailing interpretation at the time, was rendered without legal support by the supervening clarification in George Uy. The Ombudsman’s act of initiating the prosecution through the City Prosecutor was therefore valid. The Court emphasized that while the respondent judge may not have committed grave abuse of discretion given the legal landscape at the time of his ruling, the orders must be annulled to give effect to the correct and controlling interpretation of the law as finally laid down.