Three competences and percentile distribution

MCQ Type A : Knowledge and Recall (Law and Recall) …20%

-referred to as the easy level

MCQ Type B : Understanding (Law and Analysis) …40%

-referred to as the moderate level

MCQ Type C : Analysis and Solution (Law and Problem) …40%

-referred to as the difficult level

ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Public office is a public trusto Public officers must… live modest liveso Abakada v. Purisima – public officers may by law be rewarded for exemplary

Simple living – public officials shall live modest lives appropriate to their positions and incomeo RA 6712, Section 4 (h)- shall not engage in extravagant and ostentatious display

Oralo What is meant by “betrayal of public trust” as a ground for impeachment?o Deputy OMB removable only by impeachment?o Are the impeachment proceedings outside the scope of judicial review?o Francisco v. De Veneciao When is impeachment complaint deemed initiated?

When a verified complaint is filed AND referred to the Committee on Justice for action, this is the initiating step which triggers the series of steps that follow.

o Should the Rules on Impeachment be approved by the Senate and the House of Representatives?

o Should the impeachment against Gutierrez be considered a prohibited second impeachment proceedings initiated within one-year?

o Gutierrez v. House Committee on Justice Exclusive List? – Congress cannot expand this list

o Presidento VPo Members of the SCo Members of the Constitutional Commissionso Ombudsman himself

Impeachment is the strongest guarantee of SECURITY OF TENUREo OMB v. Mojica – it appears that the members of the Consti Comm have made

reference only to the Ombudsman; Constitution is exclusive Grounds – must be existing at the time during which he was an impeachable official, if he

resigns it will not be moot and academic but the it will give Congress the option to proceed or not

o Culpable violation of the Consti – intentional desire to violate the Consti, w/ intento Treason – acts in violation of the Republic of the Phils. Especially in times of waro Bribery – defined in the RPCo Graft and Corruption – defined in RA 3019o Other high crimes – heinous crimes; penalty is to be considered in defining high crimes

E.g. – plundero Betrayal of public trust – with reference to the other high crimes; committed in

violation of their oath E.g. – cronyism

Betrayal of Public trusto A catch-all proviso that should cover any violation of the oath of iffice of an

impeachable officialo Under the ejusdem generes rule, acts betraying public trust must be committed with

the same severity as “treason” and “bribery” – offenses that strike at the very heart of the life of the nation

Initiation of Impeachment proceedingso Francisco v. De Venecia – neither is the impeachment proceeding initiated when the

HOR deliberates on the Resolution pass on to it by Committee on Justice, because something prior to that has already been done.

o Gutierrez v. House Committee on Justice Impeachment complaint deemed initiated starts with the filing of the

complaint which must be accompanied with action to set the complaint moving.

Refers to the filing of the impeachment complaint COUPLED with Congress’ taking initial action of said complaint. The initial action taken by the House on the complaint is the referral of the complaint to the Committee on Justice.

The filing of the complaint indeed starts the initiation and that the Hose’s action on the committee report/resolution is not part of that initiation phase.

The referral to the Committee on Justice ends or completes the initiation for it is the action that sets the complaint moving.

o It all begins in the HOUSE… A verified complaint from impeachment may be filed by any member of the

HOR or by any citizen upon a Resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof.

o One offense, one complaint rule The Constitution allows multiple complaints, what it prohibits is multiple

proceedings. The Constitution allows the indictment for multiple impeachment offenses,

with each charge representing an article of impeachment, assembled in one set known as the “Articles of Impeachment”. It, therefore, follows that an impeachment complaint need not allege only one impeachable offense. –Guttierez v. House Committee on Justice

o Shall be included in the Order of Business within 10 session days and referred to the proper Committee

o The committee after hearing and by a MAJORITY vote of all its Members shall submit its report to the House within 60 session days from such referral, together with the corresponding resolution.

o The resolution shall be calendaredo Initiation

Filing of a verified complaint by a congressman/citizen Committee in Justice votes on the sufficiency and substance of complaint then

reports to the plenary At least 1/3 vote of the House to affirm or reject the report of the Committee

on Justice Nota bene: If 1/3 would have verified the complaint at any stage, it

shall now become the Articles of Impeachment and shall be elevated to the Senate

o Sufficiency of form and substance The house has formulated the determinable standards as to the form and

substance of an impeachment complaint… -Gutierrez v. House Comm on J The Court cannot look into the narration of facts constitutive of the offenses

as this would require the Court to make a determination of what constituties an impeachable offese. Such a determination… - Gutierrez v. House Comm on J

Congress should conduct a hearing for purposes of carrying out o What is the creeping 1/3?

In a case a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment id filed by at least 1/3 of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.

Should the 1/3 be determined at the time of the filing or after the filing? As soon as a 1/3 is actually obtained, then it shall automatically be elevated to the Senate.

o One year, one impeachment No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more

than once within a period of one year. Gutierrez: contrary to petitioner’s claim, what the Constitution mentions in

impeachment proceedings… Congress should run only one impeachment proceeding…

o Impeachment trial President – SC CJ shall preside but not vote No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of 2/3 of all the

Members of the House Once 1/3 votes is obtained, the official is already deemed impeached/indicted. Substantial evidence – same as an Administrative Case

o Judgment Shall not extent further than removal from office and disqualification to hold

any office But the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to

prosecution, trial and punishment according to law Whether convicted or not, he still can be prosecuted anew

o Impeachment rules The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry

out the purpose of this section.o Exclude the Supreme Court?

Beyond judicial review and does not violate separation of powers Judicial review of impeachments does not undermine their finality and will not

lead to conflicts between Congress and the judiciary. The Constitution provided for certain well-defined limits and “judicially discoverable standards” for determining the validity of the exercise of such discretion, via judicial review. – Francisco v. De Venecia

Judicial review over impeachment proceedings will not upset the system of checks and balances.

o Should be published to be effective? No, the Constitution did not state so as categorically did in the case of the

rules of procedure in legislative inquiries. Unlike the process of inquiry in aid of legislation where the rights of witnesses

are involved, impeachment is primary for the protection of the people as a body politic and not the punishment of the offender.

o NOTA BENE: IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT CAN BE DISMISSED AT ANY LEVEL. Sandiganbayan

o The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law.

o Is Section 4, Article XII an acknowledgment that our bureaucracy is littered with grafters

Nunez v. Sandiganbayan – the provision on the Sandiganbayan is a constitutional recognition of the continuing need to combat graft and corruption already recognized in earlier anti-graft laws.

o Has jurisdiction over offenses and felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by public officers and employee in relation to their office, where the accused holds a position with salary grade “27” and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.

Adaza v. Sandiganbayan – there was no showing that the act of falsification of public document attributed to him intimately connected to the duties of his office as mayor to bring the case within Sandiganbayan jurisdiction

Geduspan v. Sandiganbayan – salary grade 26 is within the jurisdiction of respondent court; it tis the position that petitioner holds, not her salary grade that determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

Lazarte v. Sandiganbayan – CONTROLLING RULE Ombudsman

o There is hereby created the independent office of Ombudsmano Ombudsman v. CSC – the OMB is the appointing authority for all officials and

employeeso Tanodbayan – Special Prosecutoro Calingin v. Desiertoo Disqualification – must not have been elected in any elective position in the

immediatel preceding electiono Nominated by the JBC, needs no confirmationo Term – 7 years without reappointmento People’s Champ

o Powers Investigate any public official Ombudsman v. Galicia – public school teachers under the jurisdiction of the

DepEd Schools Superintendent, not the OMB Antonino v. Desierto Boncalon v. Ombudsman – OMB has the power to directly impose the penalty

of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a erring public official, other than a member of Congress and the Judiciary

o OMB v. Samaniegoo Desierto v. Carandang

Ill-gotten Wealtho Right of the state to recover properties.o PAFFCBL v. Dimaporo – applies only to civil actionso Elements:

Acquired through as a result of improper or illegal use of or the conversion of funds belonging to the public

Must have been originated from the government itself They must have been taken by former President Marcos, his immediate

family, relatives and close associates – Republic v. Cojuanco – was not able to present sufficient evidence.

Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth

Francisco vs. House of Representeatives G.R. No. 160261

FACTS: On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution, which directed the Committee on Justice "to conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of disbursements and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)." On June 2, 2003, former President Estrada filed an impeachment complaint, which was dismissed, against Chief Justice Davide and seven Associate Justices for "culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and other high crimes." A day after the dismissal, a second impeachment complaint was filed against the Chief Justice. Respondent House of Representatives argues that the House impeachment Rules do not violate the Constitution (Sec. 3(5) of Art. XI), contending that the term “initiate” does not mean “to file.”

Within a period of 1 year, 2 impeachment proceedings were filed against Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide. The justiciable controversy in this case was the constitutionality of the subsequent filing of a second complaint to controvert the rules of impeachment provided for by law.

ISSUE: Whether or not the filing of the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. with the House of Representatives is constitutional, and whether the resolution thereof is a political question — h; as resulted in a political crisis.

HELD: Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings which were approved by the House of Representativesare unconstitutional. Consequently, the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, is barred under paragraph 5, section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution.

REASONING:In passing over the complex issues arising from the controversy, this Court is ever mindful of the essential truth that the inviolate doctrine of separation of powers among the legislative, executive or judicial branches of government by no means prescribes for absolute autonomy in the discharge by each of that part of the governmental power assigned to it by the sovereign people.

At the same time, the corollary doctrine of checks and balances which has been carefully calibrated by the Constitution to temper the official acts of each of these three branches must be given effect without destroying their indispensable co-equality. There exists no constitutional basis for the contention that the exercise of judicial review over impeachment proceedings would upset the system of checks and balances. Verily, the Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole and "one section is not to be allowed to defeat another." Both are integral components of the calibrated system of independence and interdependence that insures that no branch of government act beyond the powers assigned to it by the Constitution.

The framers of the Constitution also understood initiation in its ordinary meaning. Thus when a proposal reached the floor proposing that "A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary… to initiate impeachment proceedings," this was met by a proposal to delete the line on the ground that the vote of the House does not initiate impeachment proceeding but rather the filing of a complaint does.

Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing and referral or endorsement of the impeachment complaint to the House Committee on Justice or, by the filing by at least one-third of the members of the House of Representatives with the Secretary General of the House, the meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated, another impeachment complaint may not be filed against the same official within a one year period.

The Court in the present petitions subjected to judicial scrutiny and resolved on the merits only the main issue of whether the impeachment proceedings initiated against the Chief Justice transgressed the constitutionally imposed one-year time bar rule. Beyond this, it did not go about assuming jurisdiction where it had none, nor indiscriminately turn justiciable issues out of decidedly political questions. Because it is not at all the business of this Court to assert judicial dominance over the other two great branches of the government.

Issue: When is an impeachment complaint deemed initiated?

Ruling: The proceeding is initiated or begins, when a verified complaint (with accompanying resolution or endorsement) is filed and referred to the Committee on Justice (or proper committee) for action. This is the initiating step which triggers the series of steps that follow.

Issue: Are impeachment proceedings outside the scope of judicial review?

Ruling: It is in the context of the foregoing backdrop of constitutional refinement and jurisprudential application of the power of judicial review that respondents Speaker De Venecia, et. al. and intervenor Senator Pimentel raise the novel argument that the Constitution has EXCLUDED impeachment proceedings from the coverage of judicial review. Briefly stated, it is the position of respondents Speaker De Venecia et. al. that impeachment is a political action which cannot assume a judicial character. Hence, any question, issue or incident arising at any stage of the impeachment proceeding is beyond the reach of judicial review. For his part, intervenor Senator Pimentel contends that the Senate's "sole power to try" impeachment cases (1) entirely excludes the application of judicial review over it; and (2) necessarily includes the Senate's power to determine constitutional questions relative to impeachment proceedings.

Gutierrez v. House Committee on Justice

Facts:This is a case of Philippine Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez who was sought to be impeached by the House of Representatives on the charges of the office’s alleged unperformance and failure to act on several cases during the presidency of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. The first impeachment complaint against her was filed in 2009, but it was dismissed later that year. In 2010, two impeachment cases against her were voted sufficient in form, substance and grounds. The House Committee on Justice also found probable cause on alleged betrayal of public trust.

Issues and Ruling:

1. Did the House Committee fail to ascertain sufficiency in form and substance of the complaints on the basis of the standards set by the Constitution and its own impeachment rules?

Contrary to petitioner’s position that the Impeachment Rules do not provide for comprehensible standards in determining the sufficiency of form and substance, the Impeachment Rules are clear in echoing the constitutional requirements and providing that there must be a “verified complaint or resolution,”[36] and that the substance requirement is met if there is “a recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the committee.” Notatu dignum is the fact that it is only in the Impeachment Rules where a determination of sufficiency of form and substance of an impeachment complaint is made necessary. This requirement is not explicitly found in the organic law, as Section 3(2), Article XI of the Constitution basically merely requires a “hearing.” In the discharge of its constitutional duty, the House deemed that a finding of sufficiency of form and substance in an impeachment complaint is vital “to effectively carry out” the impeachment process, hence, such additional requirement in the Impeachment Rules.

2. Should the Impeachment Rules published to be effective?

No, although the Constitution mandates these Rules to be promulgated, it said nothing about publication.

3. Should the impeachment against Gutierrez be considered a prohibited second impeachment proceedings initiated within one-year?

No. The “initiation” starts with the filing of the complaint which must be accompanied with an action to set the complaint moving. It refers to the filing of the impeachment complaint coupled with Congress’ taking initial action of said complaint. The initial action taken by the House on the complaint is the referral of the complaint to the Committee on Justice.

4. Should an impeachment complaint only allege one impeachable offense under the “one offense, one complaint” rule of the Rules on Crim. Pro?

The “one offense, one complaint” rule in ordinary rules of criminal procedure cannot work to bar multiple complaints in impeachment proceedings, as the Constitution allows indictment for multiple impeachment offenses.

Petitioner’s invocation of that particular rule of Criminal Procedure does not lie. The Constitution allows the indictment for multiple impeachment offenses, with each charge representing an article of impeachment, assembled in one set known as the "Articles of Impeachment." An impeachment complaint need not allege only one impeachable offense.

TRUE OR FALE: [d] Decisions of the Ombudsman imposing penalties in administrative disciplinary cases are merely recommendatory.

FALSE. The Ombudsman has the authority to impose administrative penalties. The scope of the authority of the Ombudsman in administrative cases as defined under the Constitution and the Ombudsman Act is broad enough to include the direct imposition of the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine or censure on an erring public official or employee.

The OMB's power to remove, demote, suspend, fine censure and prosecute an officer or an employee is NOT merely advisory or recommendatory but MANDATORY, however, implementation of the order imposing the penalty us to be coursed through the proper officer. –Masing et. al. v. Ombudsman

Lazarte vs. Sandiganbayan

FACTS: In Lazarte, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,17 a case involving the same information, the Court held that the 5 March 2001 information is valid. The Court held that:

The Court finds that the Information in this case alleges the essential elements of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The Information specifically alleges that petitioner, Espinosa and Lobrido are public officers being then the Department Manager, Project Management Officer A and Supervising Engineer of the NHA respectively; in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to the office and while in the performance of their official functions connived, confederated and mutually helped each other and with accused Arceo C. Cruz, with deliberate intent through manifest partiality and evident bad faith gave unwarranted benefits to the latter, A.C. Cruz Construction and to themselves, to the damage and prejudice of the government. The felonious act consisted of causing to be paid to A.C. Cruz Construction public funds in the amount of P232,628.35 supposedly for excavation and road filling works on the Pahanocoy Sites and Services Project in Bacolod City despite the fact that no such works were undertaken by said construction company as revealed by the Special Audit conducted by COA.

ISSUE: As department manager of the NHA (Salary Grade 26), does the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over Lazarte?

RULING: The Court held the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction to hear the case. As correctly pointed out by the Sandiganbayan, it is of no moment that petitioner does not occupy a position with Salary Grade 27 as he was a department manager of the NHA, a government-owned or controlled corporation, at the time of the commission of the offense, which position falls within the ambit of its jurisdiction. Apropos, the Court held in the case of Geduspan v. People which involved a regional Manager/Director of Region VI of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (Philhealth) with salary grade 26.

The position of manager in a government-owned or controlled corporation, as in the case of Philhealth, is within the jurisdiction of respondent court. It is the position that petitioner holds, not her salary grade, that determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

DESIERTO VS. CARANDANG

FACTS: On July 28, 1998, Carandang assumed office as general manager and chief operating officer of RPN. On April 19, 1999, Carandang and other RPN officials were charged with grave misconduct before the Ombudsman. The charge alleged that Carandang, in his capacity as the general manager of RPN, had entered into a contract with AF Broadcasting Incorporated despite his being an incorporator, director, and stockholder of that corporation; that he had thus held financial and material interest in a contract that had required the approval of his office; and that the transaction was prohibited under Section 7 (a) and Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), thereby rendering him administratively liable for grave misconduct. Carandang sought the dismissal of the administrative charge on the ground that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction over him because RPN was not a government-owned or -controlled corporation

ISSUE: As general manager and chief operating officer of radio Philippines network, inc. does the sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over carandang?

Ruling: NO. It was held that Carandang was a public official by virtue of his having been appointed as general manager and chief operating officer of RPN by President Estrada deserves no consideration. President Estrada's intervention was merely to recommend Carandang's designation as general manager and chief operating officer of RPN to the PCGG, which then cast the vote in his favor vis-Ã -vis said positions. Under the circumstances, it was RPN's Board of Directors that appointed Carandang to his positions pursuant to RPN's By-Laws.

In fine, CARANDANG WAS CORRECT in insisting that being a private individual he was not subject to the administrative authority of the Ombudsman and to the criminal jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

Ombudsman VS. CSC

Facts: This controversy traces its roots to Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo’s letter dated July 28, 2003 to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) requesting the approval of the amendment of qualification standards for Director II positions in the Central Administrative Service and Finance and Management Service of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman, claiming that its constitutional and statutory powers were unduly curtailed, now seeks to set aside and nullify CSC Opinion No. 44, s. 2004 via this petition for certiorari. The Office of the Ombudsman asserts that it cannot be curtailed by the general power of the CSC to administer the civil service system. Any unwarranted and unreasonable restriction on its discretionary authority, such as what the CSC did when it issued Opinion No. 44, s. 2004, is constitutionally and legally infirm.

Issue: What is the extent of CSCs power of the personnel organization, staffing, and qualification over the employees of the Ombudsman?

Ruling: Since the responsibility for the establishment, administration and maintenance of qualification standards lies with the concerned department or agency, the role of the CSC is limited to assisting the department or agency with respect to these qualification standards and approving them. The CSC cannot substitute its own standards for those of the department or agency, especially in a case like this in which an independent constitutional body is involved.

Accordingly, the petition is hereby GRANTED and Opinion No. 44, s. 2004 dated January 23, 2004 of the Civil Service Commission is SET ASIDE. The Civil Service Commission is hereby ordered to approve the amended qualification standards for Director II positions in the Central Administrative Service and the Finance and Management Service of the Office of the Ombudsman.

Ombudsman vs Galicia GR 167711, Oct. 10, 2008

Facts: Respondent Ramon C. Galicia was a former public school teacher at M.B. Asistio, Sr. High School (MBASHS) in Caloocan City. Based on the academic records that he submitted forming part of his 201 file, Galicia graduated from the Far Eastern University with a degree in civil engineering but failed to pass the board examinations. He also represented himself to have earned eighteen (18) units in education in school year (SY) 1985-1986, evidenced by a copy of a Transcript of Records (TOR) from the Caloocan City Polytechnic College (CCPC). Likewise, he passed the Teachers' Professional Board Examination (TPBE).

Yamsuan, then principal, proceeded to verify the authenticity of the said TOR. Yamsuan was surprised to receive a reply from the College Registrar of CCPC stating that they had no record of the said TOR. Acting on his findings, Yamsuan lodged an affidavit-complaint for falsification, dishonesty, and grave misconduct against Galicia before the Ombudsman.

Issue: As between the Ombudsman and DepEd Schools Superintendent, who has the jurisdiction to investigate non-feasance and mal-feasance by public school teachers?

Ruling: The court held that it is the DepEd School Superintendent and not the Ombudsman that has jurisdiction over administrative cases against public school teachers. However, in the case at bar, Galicia is estopped from belatedly assailing the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. His right to due process was satisfied when he participated fully in the investigation proceedings. He was able to present evidence and arguments in his defense. The investigation conducted by the Ombudsman was therefore valid.

BONCALON v. OMBUDSMAN

Facts: On November 25, 1997, Loida C. Arabelo, the State Auditor II of Bago City, Negros Occidental, conducted an audit on the cash accounts of Boncalon, a Cashier IV at Bago City Treasurers Office. The audit revealed a cash shortage of P1,023,829.56. The state auditor also discovered, upon verification from the depository bank, that the entry in Boncalons cashbook pertaining to the deposit of P1,019,535.21 on October 31, 1997 was false. Deposits totaling said amount were made only on November 25, 1997 and December 22, 1997, in the amounts of P200,000.00 and P819,535.21, respectively.

In view of the audit findings, Boncalon was administratively charged with dishonesty before the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas).

Issue: Is the OMB merely limited to the power to recommend?

Ruling: Ombudsman has the power to directly impose the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of an erring public official, other than a member of Congress and the Judiciary, within the exercise of its administrative disciplinary authority as provided for in Section 13(3), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, and Section 15(3) of Republic Act No. 6770.

cralawWhile Section 15(3) of RA 6770 states that the Ombudsman has the power to recommend x x x removal, suspension, demotion x x x of government officials and employees, the same Section 15(3) also states that the Ombudsman in the alternative may enforce its disciplinary authority as provided in Section 21 of RA 6770. The wordor in Section 15(3) before the phrase enforce its disciplinary authority as provided in Section 21 grants the Ombudsman this alternative power. 

Section 21 of RA 6770 vests in the Ombudsman disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the Government, except impeachable officers, members of Congress, and the Judiciary. And under Section 25 of RA 6770, the Ombudsman may impose in administrative proceedings the penalty ranging from suspension without pay for one year to dismissal with forfeiture of benefits or a fine ranging from five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) to twice the amount malversed, illegally taken or lost, or both at the discretion of the Ombudsman

PAFFCBL v. DIMAPORO

Facts:Respondents M.Dimaporo, A.Dimaporo, and Dianalan, were stockholders and officers of the Mindanao Coconut Oil Mills (MINCOCO), a domestic corporation established in 1974, while respondents Domingo, Reyes, Herboza, and Sunga, were then officers of the National Investment and Development Corporation (NIDC). MINCOCO later on applied for Guarantee Loan Accommodation with the NIDC in which the latter approved. The guarantee loan was, however, both undercapitalized and under-collateralized because MINCOCO's paid capital was not enough. When MINCOCO's mortgage liens were about were about to be foreclosed by the government banks, Danding Cojuanco issued a memorandum bearing President Marcos' marginal note, disallowing such foreclosure. These transactions were later on discovered by the effrts of President Ramos to recover ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses. It was found that 21 corporations, including MINCOCO, obtained behest loans.

Issue: blabla...

Ruling:The Court, in resolving the issue on prescription considered the following: (1) the period of prescription for the offense charged; (2) the time the period of prescription started to run; and (3) the time the prescriptive period was interrupted. First, the period of prescription for

the crime charged in this petition, committed in 1976 and prior to the amendment of Republic Act No. 3019, is ten (10) years. Second, prescription of crime shall begin to run from the day of its commission, and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. Third, while the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether a criminal case is to be filed, the Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's action when there is a grave abuse of discretion. Thus, while the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether a criminal case is to be filed, the Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's action when there is grave abuse of discretion. So the non-prescriptibility under Sec. 15, Article XI applies only to civil cases because criminal cases prescribe.

REPUBLIC v. COJUANCO

Facts:This is one of the most crucial case against the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses and their associates dating back from the Martial Law era involving the shares in San Miguel Corporation (SMC) allegedly bought with coconut levy funds exacted from the poor marginal coconut farmers all over the country. This block of shares was purportedly owned by businessman Eduardo “Danding” Cojuangco and is one of many cases filed way back in 1987 by the Presidential Commission on Good Government, as part of its mandate to recover ill-gotten wealth.

Issues: blabla...

Ruling:The majority ruling states that the Republic utterly failed to present evidence to show that the sources of funds used by Danding Cojuangco are public in character saying that the earlier landmark 2007 ruling by the Supreme Court that such coconut levy funds are “prima facie” public in character does not excuse the government lawyers from presenting further proof that such coconut levy funds were public in character and thus also, ill-gotten by Cojuangco. The core of the case involves involves a simple rule in evidence and is centered on the issue of who now has the burden or the task of showing that one's allegations are correct and are further beyond dispute by the other side and is now supposed to be binding on the court and all the parties. The concurring elements and the concept of ill-gotten wealth is when it is acquired through as a result of improper or illegal use of or the conversion of funds belonging to the public, it must have been originated from the government itself, and finally, it must have been taken by former President Marcos, his immediate family, relatives and close associates.

OMBUDSMAN v. SAMANIEGO

Facts:

This is a resolution of the second motion for partial reconsideration filed by petitioner Office of the Ombudsman to our decision dated September 11, 2008, particularly our pronouncement with respect to the stay of the decision of the Ombudsman during the pendency of an appeal. Respondent Joel S. Samaniego was the City Treasurer of Ligao City, Albay. On separate dates, the Commission on Audit (COA) filed two administrative complaints against Samaniego for dishonesty and grave misconduct. In these administrative complaints, the COA alleged that respondent incurred shortages in his accountabilities for two separate periods. Respondent averred, among others, that the allegations were bereft of factual basis. He also pleaded the defense of restitution of his alleged accountabilities. In a joint decision, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon found respondent liable for grave misconduct because he failed to explain his side and settle his accountabilities. He was meted the penalty of one year suspension from office.

Issue: blabla…

Ruling:

The SC held that the Ombudsman’s decision imposing the penalty if suspension for one year is immediately executor pending appeal. It cannot be stayed by the mere filing of an appeal to the CA. This rule is similar to that provided under Section 47 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. Clearly, Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman supersedes the discretion given to the CA in Section 12, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court when a decision of the Ombudsman in an administrative case is appealed to the CA. The provision in the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman that a decision is immediately executory is a special rule that prevails over the provisions of the Rules of Court. Specialis derogat generali. When two rules apply to a particular case, that which was specially designed for the said case must prevail over the other.