G.R. No. 170146 , June 8, 2011.
HON. WALDO Q. FLORES, in his capacity as Senior Deputy Executive Secretary in the Office of the President, HON. ARTHUR P. AUTEJ, in his capacity as Deputy Executive Secretary in the Office of the President, and the PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION (PAGC), Petitioners, vs. ATTY. ANTONIO F. MONTEMAYOR, Respondent.

FACTS

This case resolves a motion for reconsideration of a Decision which reinstated the Office of the President’s (OP) finding that respondent Atty. Antonio F. Montemayor was administratively liable for failing to declare two expensive cars in his 2001 and 2002 Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SSAL), in violation of Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019 in relation to Section 8(A) of R.A. No. 6713 . The OP, adopting the findings of the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC), imposed the penalty of dismissal. The motion for reconsideration raised several grounds, including double jeopardy, conflicting decisions between agencies, violation of due process, and the severity of the penalty.

ISSUE

The primary issues for resolution are: (1) whether the administrative proceedings before the PAGC/OP constitute double jeopardy given a prior investigation by the Ombudsman; (2) whether the PAGC/OP had jurisdiction over the administrative case despite a dismissal by the Ombudsman; (3) whether respondent’s right to due process was violated; and (4) whether the penalty of dismissal is too harsh.

RULING

The motion for reconsideration is denied.
1. On Double Jeopardy: The claim of double jeopardy is bereft of merit. Double jeopardy requires a valid indictment before a competent court, arraignment, a valid plea, and a conviction, acquittal, or dismissal without the accused’s consent. The Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation does not constitute trial. The dismissal of a case during preliminary investigation does not bar subsequent administrative proceedings, as they involve different liabilities.
2. On Conflicting Decisions and Jurisdiction: The argument that the Ombudsman’s dismissal should prevail is untenable. A public officer can be held civilly, criminally, and administratively liable for the same wrongful act; these liabilities are separate and distinct. The dismissal of a criminal action does not foreclose administrative proceedings. The doctrine of res judicata does not apply as there is no identity of causes of action between the criminal complaint before the Ombudsman and the administrative case. Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s investigative and disciplinary jurisdiction over public officers is not exclusive but concurrent with other authorized agencies like the PAGC. As a presidential appointee, respondent is under the disciplinary authority of the OP. The PAGC acquired jurisdiction over the administrative complaint (directing respondent to file his counter-affidavit on May 19, 2003) before the Ombudsman issued its order (March 19, 2004). The rule is that initial acquisition of jurisdiction by one body of concurrent jurisdiction divests another.
3. On Due Process: The Court finds that respondent was afforded due process. He was given the opportunity to be heard and to present evidence during the PAGC proceedings.
4. On the Penalty: The penalty of dismissal is not too harsh. The offense involves a violation of the law on the disclosure of assets, which is a serious matter essential to public accountability. The law prescribes the penalty for such violations, and the Court found no reason to deviate from its imposition.