G.R. No. 163586 , January 27, 2009.
SHARON CASTRO, Petitioner, vs. HON. MERLIN DELORIA, as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Guimaras; the COA-Region VI, represented by its Director; and HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

FACTS

On May 31, 2000, petitioner Sharon Castro, a Revenue Officer I, was charged with Malversation of Public Funds before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guimaras by the Ombudsman. She pleaded not guilty on February 16, 2001. On August 31, 2001, she filed a Motion to Quash the Information, arguing that the RTC lacked jurisdiction because the Information failed to allege her salary grade, and that the Ombudsman lacked authority to conduct the preliminary investigation and file the Information, citing the Supreme Court’s August 9, 1999 Decision in Uy v. Sandiganbayan which held that the Ombudsman’s prosecutorial power was limited to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. The RTC denied the motion, holding that jurisdiction depended on the penalty imposable, not the salary grade, and that the Uy ruling had been set aside by the Court’s March 20, 2001 Resolution which recognized the Ombudsman’s authority in cases cognizable by the RTC. The RTC also noted the motion was filed after her plea. Her motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals dismissed her petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Ombudsman had the authority to file the Information for Malversation on May 31, 2000, in light of the Supreme Court’s initial August 9, 1999 ruling in Uy v. Sandiganbayan.
2. Whether the clarificatory Resolution dated March 20, 2001 in the Uy case can be applied to the petitioner without violating constitutional provisions on ex post facto laws and due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit.
1. The Ombudsman had the authority to investigate and prosecute the case. The Court, citing Office of the Ombudsman v. Enoc and Office of Ombudsman v. Hon. Breva, held that its March 20, 2001 Resolution in Uy v. Sandiganbayan—which reconsidered the August 9, 1999 Decision and affirmed the Ombudsman’s plenary power to prosecute cases cognizable by regular courts—extends to criminal informations filed or pending at the time the initial Uy decision was operative. The power of the Ombudsman under R.A. No. 6770 is broad and not confined to Sandiganbayan cases.
2. The application of the March 20, 2001 Resolution does not constitute an ex post facto law or a denial of due process. A judicial interpretation of a statute is deemed part of that law from its original passage; it construes pre-existing law and clarifies legislative intent. The March 20, 2001 Resolution did not invalidate any law or abandon a settled doctrine; it merely corrected an erroneous interpretation of the Ombudsman Act. Therefore, its effect retroactively validates the Ombudsman’s investigatory and prosecutory actions taken prior to the clarification. The second issue was rendered moot.