G.R. No. L-52446-48 May 15, 1980
ENRIQUE B. INTING, petitioner, vs. THE TANODBAYAN, THE CITY FISCAL OF DAVAO, HONORABLE JUDGE MILAGROS C. NARTATEZ and ANGELINA S. SALCEDO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Enrique B. Inting endorsed complaints for perjury against respondent Angelina S. Salcedo, an Assistant Docket Clerk of the City Court of Davao. The complaints alleged that Salcedo falsely stated in several sworn Personal Data Sheets that she completed a Secretarial Science course at the University of San Carlos. After preliminary investigation, the City Fiscal of Davao, through Special Counsel Rodrigo R. Duterte, found a prima facie case and filed three Informations for perjury against Salcedo in the City Court of Davao. Salcedo appealed the Fiscal’s resolution to the Ministry of Justice, which forwarded the case to the Tanodbayan pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1630.
The Tanodbayan, Vicente G. Ericta, reversed the City Fiscal’s finding of a prima facie case for perjury. He directed the City Fiscal to move for the dismissal of the three criminal cases. Consequently, the City Fiscal filed a Motion to Dismiss in the City Court. Inting then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to restrain the Tanodbayan from interfering, to nullify his resolutions, and to prevent the dismissal of the criminal cases.

ISSUE

Whether the Tanodbayan had jurisdiction to review the City Fiscal’s resolution and order the dismissal of the perjury cases against Salcedo, a court employee.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Tanodbayan’s jurisdiction. The Court rejected Inting’s argument that the Tanodbayan’s authority under P.D. No. 1630 was limited to graft cases and offenses committed “in relation to office,” and that Salcedo, as an “appurtenant judicial staff,” was excluded. The legal logic centered on a broad interpretation of the Tanodbayan’s constitutional and statutory mandate.
The Court clarified that P.D. No. 1630 empowered the Tanodbayan to “file and prosecute… such other offenses committed by public officers and employees… in relation to their office.” Furthermore, Section 18 authorized him to investigate and prosecute any public official where action was warranted. The act of accomplishing a Personal Data Sheet is a requirement under Civil Service rules for government employment. Therefore, making an untruthful statement therein is “intimately connected with such employment” and constitutes an act committed in relation to her office as a public employee. Salcedo was already in government service when she accomplished the later data sheets.
The Court emphasized that the Tanodbayan’s creation under the Constitution aimed to investigate complaints relative to public office and promote government integrity. Construing the law to exclude such acts from his purview would emasculate his authority and frustrate this vital public function. Thus, the Tanodbayan acted within his jurisdiction in reviewing the case and ordering the dismissal of the perjury charges.