BUREAU OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RESPONDENT.
FACTS:
The Office of the Ombudsman received information from an informer-for-reward
that tax refunds have been anomalously granted to Distillera Limtuaco &
Co., Inc. and La Tondeña Distilleries, Inc. Upon receipt of the
information, Soquilon recommended to then Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez that the
“case” be docketed and subsequently assigned to him for investigation.
On the basis of the information, the OMB issued a subpoena duces
tecum addressed to Atty. Mansequiao of the Legal Department of
the BIR ordering him to appear before him and to bring the complete original
case dockets of the refunds granted to the said companies.
BIR resisted the summons
on the grounds that the grant of the tax refund had already been mooted by the
Sandiganbayan in People vs Larin, that “the legal issue was no longer in
question since the BIR had ruled that the ad valorem taxes were
erroneously paid and could therefore be the proper subject of a claim for tax
credit.” BIR argued that for subpoena duces tecum to be properly issued
in accordance with law, there must first be a pending action because the power
to issue a subpoena duces tecum is not an independent
proceeding. The BIR noted that the Ombudsman issued the assailed subpoena duces
tecum based only on the information obtained from an
“informer-for-reward”.
The Ombudsman denied the
motion of the BIR and reiterated its instructions to the BIR to produce the
documents sought. Instead of complying, the BIR filed this petition for
certiorari, prohibition, and preliminary injunction, and temporary restraining
order with the SC.
ISSUES:
1.
Whether or not the
Ombudsman could validly exercise its power to investigate only when
there exists an appropriate case and subject to the limitations provided by law
2.
Whether or not the
granting tax refunds falls within BIR’s exclusive expertise and jurisdiction
and that its findings could no longer be disturbed by the Ombudsman
3.
Whether or not the
investigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman violated due process in
issuing subpoena without first giving BIR the summary of complaint and
requiring it to submit a written reply
RULING:
1.
No. The 1987 Constitution enjoins that the “Ombudsman and his Deputies, as
protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any
form or manner against public officials or employees of the government,
or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate case,
notify the complainants of the action taken and the result thereof.” There is
no requirement of a pending action before the Ombudsman could wield its
investigative power. Even when the complaint is verbal or written, unsigned or
unverified, the Ombudsman could, on its own, initiate the investigation.
2.
No. The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the
Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. The Ombudsman Act provides that the
jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses “all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance
and nonfeasance that have been committed by any officer or employee xxx during
his tenure of office.
Concededly, the determination of whether to grant a tax refund falls within the exclusive expertise of the BIR. When there is a suspicion of even just a tinge of impropriety in the grant of the same, the Ombudsman could rightfully ascertain whether the determination was done in accordance with law and identify the persons who may be held responsible thereto.
Concededly, the determination of whether to grant a tax refund falls within the exclusive expertise of the BIR. When there is a suspicion of even just a tinge of impropriety in the grant of the same, the Ombudsman could rightfully ascertain whether the determination was done in accordance with law and identify the persons who may be held responsible thereto.
3.
Yes. It is clear from the initial comments of the graft investigator that based
on the information, he undoubtedly found reasonable grounds to investigate
further. In fact, he recommended that the “case” be docketed immediately
and assigned to him for a “full-blown fact-finding investigation.” if there is
a reasonable ground to investigate further, the investigator of the Office of
the Ombudsman shall first furnish the respondent public officer or
employee with a summary of the complaint and require him to submit a written
answer within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt thereof.
In the instant case, the
BIR was never furnished by the respondent with a summary of the complaint and
were not given the opportunity to submit their counter-affidavits and
controverting evidence. Instead, they were summarily ordered to appear
before the Ombudsman and to produce the case dockets of the tax refunds granted
to Limtuaco and La Tondeña. They are aggrieved in that, from the point of
view of the respondent, they were already deemed probably guilty of granting
anomalous tax refunds.
Petition is granted.
Ombudsman is prohibited from proceeding with the case and its orders are
annulled and set aside.
GEORGE
UY, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, THE HON. OMBUDSMAN AND THE HON.
ROGER C. BERBANO, SR., SPECIAL PROSECUTION OFFICER III, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR, RESPONDENTS. [ G.R. Nos. 105965-70, March 20, 2001 ]
FACTS: In Uy
vs Sandiganbayan [G.R. Nos. 105965-70.
August 9, 1999], petitioner Uy, who was Deputy Comptroller of the Philippine
navy and designated as Assistant Chief of Naval Staff for Comptrollership was
charged with estafa through falsification of official documents and violation
of RA 3019. The petitioner filed a motion to quash, arguing that the
Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the offense charged and that the
Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor had no authority to file the offense.
The
court ruled that :
1.
It is the court-martial, not the Sandiganbayan, which has jurisdiction to try
petitioner since he was a regular officer of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, and fell squarely under Article 2 of the Articles of War mentioned
in Section 1(b) of P.D. 1850, “Providing for the trial by courts-martial of
members of the Integrated National Police and further defining the jurisdiction
of courts-martial over members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines”
2.
As to the violations of Republic Act No. 3019, the petitioner does not
fall within the “rank” requirement stated in Section 4 of the Sandiganbayan
Law, thus, exclusive jurisdiction over petitioner is vested in the regular
courts , as amended by R.A. No. 8249, which states that “In cases where none of
the accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade ‘27’ or
higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP
officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be
vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal
trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to
their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as
amended.”
In this
connection, it is the prosecutor, not the Ombudsman, who has the authority to
file the corresponding information/s against petitioner in the regional trial
court. The Ombudsman exercises prosecutorial powers only in cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
In
February 20, 2000, a motion for clarification which in fact appeared to be a
partial motion for reconsideration was filed by the Ombudsman and the Special
Prosecutor filed, which was denied.
The
instant case is a Motion for Further Clarification filed by Ombudsman
Aniano A. Desierto of the Court's ruling in its decision dated August 9, 1999
and resolution dated February 22, 2000.
ISSUE: Whether
or not the prosecutory power of the Ombudsman extends only to
cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and that the Ombudsman has no authority
to prosecute cases falling within the jurisdiction of regular courts.
RULING: No. The Ombudsman is clothed with authority to conduct
preliminary investigation and to prosecute all criminal cases involving public
officers and employees, not only those within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, but those within the jurisdiction of the regular courts as well.
The power to investigate and to prosecute granted
by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. It
pertains to any act or omission of any public officer or employee when such
act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. The
law does not make a distinction between cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan
and those cognizable by regular courts. It has been held that the clause
"any illegal act or omission of any public official" is broad enough
to embrace all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance committed by
public officers and employees during their tenure of office.
The
exercise by the Ombudsman of his primary jurisdiction over
cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan is not incompatible with the discharge of
his duty to investigate and prosecute other offenses committed by public
officers and employees. The prosecution of offenses committed by public
officers and employees is one of the most important functions of the Ombudsman. In passing RA 6770, the Congress deliberately endowed
the Ombudsman with such power to make him a more active and
effective agent of the people in ensuring accountability in public office.
Even a perusal of the law (PD 1630) originally
creating the Office of the Ombudsman then (to be known as the
Tanodbayan), and the amendatory laws issued subsequent thereto will show that,
at its inception, the Office of the Ombudsman was already
vested with the power to investigate and prosecute civil and criminal cases
before the Sandiganbayan and even the regular courts.
[ G.R. No. 120422, September 27, 1995 ] CHIEF SUPT. ROMEO ACOP VS. THE
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
AND HON. MANUEL B. CASACLANG
[G.R. NO. 120428] P/CHIEF SUPT. PANFILO M. LACSON et al VS. BGEN. MANUEL B. CASACLANG, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY et al.
[G.R. NO. 120428] P/CHIEF SUPT. PANFILO M. LACSON et al VS. BGEN. MANUEL B. CASACLANG, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY et al.
FACTS: On May 18, 1995, eleven suspected
members of the notorious robbery gang, "Kuratong Baleleng," were
killed in an alleged shootout with composite teams of the National Capital
Regional Command (NCRC), Traffic Management Command (TMC), Presidential
Anti-Crime Commission (PACC), Central Police District Command (CPDC) and
Criminal Investigation Command (CIC).
SPO2 Eduardo de los Reyes of the Central Intelligence Command (CIC) then made an expose', stating that there was no shootout and that the "Kuratong Baleleng" members were victims of summary execution.
SPO2 Eduardo de los Reyes of the Central Intelligence Command (CIC) then made an expose', stating that there was no shootout and that the "Kuratong Baleleng" members were victims of summary execution.
The Commission on Human Rights (CHR)
received the complaint of the relatives of the slain suspected gang members,
accusing the PACC, NCRC, TMC, CIC and CPDC of murder. Acting Ombudsman Villa directed
public respondent Deputy Ombudsman
Casaclang to create a panel to monitor the investigations being conducted by
the Commission on Human Rights, the Senate Committee on Justice and Human
Rights, and the Philippine National Police (PNP) Director for Investigation
regarding the alleged shootout.
The panel recommended that a
preliminary investigation be conducted against petitioners and all the
participating personnel listed in the After Operations Report of the PNP.
Casaclang then issued the order directing petitioner[s] and nine others to
submit their counter-affidavits and controverting evidence within ten days from
receipt thereof, which the petitioners failed to comply.
The petitioners instead filed a motion
with Casaclang to suspend the preliminary investigation against them pending
resolution of the petition for certiorari filed with the Supreme
Court. Casaclang granted the motion, only to be reversed by Villa.
Villa then took over "the direct supervision and control of the
preliminary investigation". The petitioners challenged the take-over,
asserting that neither the Ombudsman nor his Deputy may conduct preliminary
investigation.
ISSUES:
- Whether or not the Ombudsman and Deputy Ombudsman are authorized to conduct preliminary investigations
- Whether or not public respondent Deputy Ombudsman for Military Manuel Casaclang committed grave abuse of discretion when he set the case for preliminary investigation and required the petitioners to submit their counter-affidavits before any preliminary evaluation of the complaint as required by Section 2, Rule II of Administrative Order No. 07 of the Office of the Ombudsman.
RULING:
1.
Yes. By express mandate of
paragraph 8, Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution, among the functions of
the Ombudsman are
those other powers, functions or duties as
may be provided by law.
Through the passage of R.A. No. 6770, the
Office of the Special Prosecutor was made an organic component of the Office of
the Ombudsman, while
the Ombudsman was
granted the following powers, among others:
1.
Investigate and
prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of
any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary
jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise
of its primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any
investigatory agency of Government, the investigation of such cases;
2.
Delegate to the
Deputies, or its investigators or representatives such authority or duty as
shall ensure the effective exercise or performance of the powers, functions,
and duties herein or hereinafter provided
|
|
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
|
|
The petitioners have not proven any distinction between
"the duty to investigate" and "the power to conduct
preliminary investigations"; neither have the petitioners established
that the power remains with the Tanodbayan, now the Special Prosecutor.
|
|
|
|
Deputy Ombudsman - Section 5, Article XI of the
Constitution provides: SEC. 5. There is hereby created the independent
Office of the Ombudsman,
composed of the Ombudsman to be known as Tanodbayan, one overall Deputy and at
least one Deputy each for Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. A separate
Deputy for the military establishment may likewise be appointed.
The deliberations on the Deputy for the military establishment do not yield conclusive evidence that such deputy is prohibited from performing other functions or duties affecting non-military personnel. On the contrary, a review of the relevant Constitutional provisions reveals otherwise.
As previously established, the Ombudsman "may exercise such other powers or perform such functions or duties" as Congress may prescribe through legislation. Therefore, nothing can prevent Congress from giving the Ombudsman supervision and control over the Ombudsman's deputies, one being the deputy for the military establishment.
2.
The Court does not share the petitioners' view that Casaclang set the case
for preliminary investigation and required the petitioners to file their
counter-affidavits without the conduct of a preliminary evaluation of the
complaint as required by the Rules of the Office of the Ombudsman. In this case, no evidence to
that effect was adduced. On the contrary, the Panel of Investigators
submitted its evaluation report on 8 June 1995, and it was only on 14 June 1995
that respondent Casaclang issued the questioned order.
Moreover, the evaluation
required is merely preliminary in nature and scope, not a detailed inquiry.
Likewise, the conduct of such evaluation involves the exercise of discretion
which has not been shown to be abused in the instant case.
2 comments:
zzzzz2018.8.11
ray ban sunglasses
canada goose outlet
jordan shoes
dsquared
prada handbags
coach outlet online
lacoste outlet
coach outlet
supreme outlet
mlb shop
kyrie 7
goyard bag
goyard bag
bape
bape outlet
golden goose outlet
fear of god essentials hoodie
air jordan
pg 4
hermes bikrin bag outlet
Post a Comment