In Re Gonzales Annotation

7/23/2019 In Re Gonzales Annotation

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/in-re-gonzales-annotation 1/4

Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan and Zaldivar vs. Hon. Raul Gonzalez, claiming to be and actingas Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1!" #onstitution$ature% &etition'or certiorari, (rohibition, and mandamusto revie) the decision o' theSandiganbayan*acts%+

nriue Zaldivar, governor o' the (rovince o' ntiue+Sought to restrain the Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan Raul Gonzalez+*rom (roceeding )ith the (rosecution and hearing o' criminal cases 'iled against him+On the ground that said cases )ere 'iled by the Tanodbayan.+ The 1!" #onsti (rovided that it is only the Ombudsman )ho has the authority to'ilecases )ith the Sandiganbayan./ssue%

0O$ Tanodbayan had authority to 'ile those cases 'or Sandiganbayan to (rosecute andhear.

Held% $O Ratio%1.nder the 1!" #onsti, the Ombudsman 2distinguished 'romTanodbayan3 is charged )ith the duty to%

Section 13, par

1: Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omissionof any public officer, employee, office or agency, when such act or omissionappears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.

2. The Tanodbayan o' the 1"4 #onsti became the Office of the Special prosecutorthat shall continue to function and exercise it powers as now or hereafter may beprovided by law, except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsmancreated under the onsti. !article 11, section "#

4 .T h u s , b e g i n n i n g o n * e b r u a r y 5 , 1 ! " , t h e a u t h o r i t y t o c on d u c t ( r e l i m i n a r y investigations and direct the ' il ing o' criminalcases )ith the Sandiganbayan )asvested on the Ombudsman

6.The Tanodbayan is no) the subordinate o' the Sandiganbayan and it caninvestigate and (rosecute cases only u(on the latter7s authority or orders .O''ice o' theTanodbayan% created by &8 19:"GR$T;< GO$Z=Z OR;R; TO #S $;;S/ST *RO> #O$;#T/$G /$?ST/GT/O$S$; */=/$G #R/>$/= #SS0/TH TH S$;/G$8@$ OR OTHR0/S AR#/S$G TH&O0RS

$;



*$#T/O$S O* TH O>8;S>$ /nting vs. Tanodbayan 21!: case3$ature% &etition 'rocertiorari and (rohibition )ith (reliminary inBunction and restraining order*acts%1./nting 'iled com(laints 'or (erBury at the #ity *iscal o' ;avao7s o''ice, against

ngelinaS. Salcedo 2in latter7s (ersonal data sheets, she indicated that she com(letedthe 1-year Secretarial Science course at S# in #ebu although she never

enrolled in, andneither did she com(lete the course3 Salcedo is an a((urtenant o' the Budicial sta'' o' the #ity #ourt o' ;avao5.#ity *iscal o' ;avao thru S(ecia l #ounselRodrigo R. ;uterte conducted (reliminaryinvestigation.4.'ound (rima 'acie case'or (erBury and ' iled 4 se(arate counts o' (erBury under art ic le1!4 o' R&#6.Salcedo inter(osed a((eal to the ministry o' Custice.D.>inistry o' Custice 'or)arded records to Tanodbayan, (ursuant to Section 1: 2'3 o' the&; $o. 194:, )h ich vests on the la t te r the(o)er to ' i l e and (rosecute o ' 'ensescommitted by (ublic o''icers and em(loyees inrelation to their o''ice.9.Tanodbayan ?icente ricta reversed decision o' #ity*iscal." .d i rec ted c i t y ' i sca l to move 'or d ismissa l o ' the 4 cr iminal cases 'or (erBury againstSalcedo

/ssue% 0O$ Tanodbayan has Burisdiction and authority to revie) and nulli'y theresolutions o' the #ity *iscal o' ;avaoHeld% @esRatio%

1. Tanodbayan has authority to 'ile and (rosecute Salcedo7s case even i' itdoes notinvolve gra't and corru(t o''ices because it 'alls under such other offensescovered bysection 1: 2'3 o' &; 194:5 . c t o ' ( e r B u r y ) a s i nr e l a t i o n t o S a l c e d o 7 s o ' ' i c e . S e c t i o n 1 ! o ' & ;1 9 4 : g i v e s Tanodbayan authority to conduct investigations and 'ile case 'or suchoccurrence.4.Tanodbayan there'ore had authority to nulli'y and revie)resolutions o' the #ity *iscalo' ;avao as the case involved the actions o' a government o''icial related to his o''ice.&T/T/O$ ;/S>/SS;.Ora(, ?icente vs.Sandiganbayan re(resented by Custices >anuel &amaran, *ernandez, andscareal 21!Dcase3$ature% &etition 'or certiorari and (rohibition to revie) the decision o' the Sandiganbayan*acts%+ Tanodbayan S(ecial &rosecutor Rodol'o uino+#harged ? icente Ora(, (res id ing Budge o ' the >unic i(a l #our t o ' >angatarem,&angasinan+0ith violation o' Section 4e3 o' Re( ct 4:1, other)ise Eno)n as the nti-Gra'tand#orru(t &ractices ct+ Cuan Sison, then #hie' S(ecial (rosecutor o' the Tanodbayan a((roved in'ormationandthe latter )as docEeted as #rim. #ases $os. S8-:5:, :51, :55.+#lerE o' #ourt, >elanio *ernandez )as also charged.+



Ora( contended that Tanodbayan had no (o)er to conduct (reliminaryinvestigations,'ile in'os, and (rosecute criminal cases against Budges and their a((urtenant Budicialsta''. $lleged crime of Orap: too% sums of money from several persons in connection with thecaseof &eople vs. &epito Iglesias, for rec%less imprudence resulting in multiple

homicide, serious physical in'uries and damage to property/ s s u e He l d F R at i o 0O$ Tanodbayan has authority to conduct(reliminary investigation o' the com(laint$O.s Ombudsman, his investigatory (o)ersarelimited to com(laints initiated againsto''icesand (ersonnel o' administrative agencies asde'ined in Section 2a3 o' &;19:".0 O $ T a n o d b a y a n h a d a u t h o r i t y t o ' i l e c o r r e s ( o n d i n g in ' o r m a t i o n b e ' o r e t h e Sandiganbayan and (rosecute thesame @S. s ( r o s e c u t o r , t h e a u t h o r i t y o ' t h e T a no d b a y a n i s ( l e n a r y a n d ) i t h o u t ece(tions.S e c t i on 1 " o '

& ; 1 9 : " e m ( o ) e r s s ( e c i a l&o)ers o' Tanodbayan% &; 19:4Section 1: 2a3 he may investigate, on com(laintby any (erson or on his o)n motion or initiative, any administrativeact)hether amounting to any criminal o''ense or not o' any administrative agencyincluding any GO##.2'3 he may 'ile and (rosecute civil and administrative casesinvolving gra 't and corru(t (ractices and such o ther o ''ensescommitted by(ublic o''icers and em(loyees, including those in GO##, in relation totheir o''ice.(rosecutors eclusive author ity to conduct( r e l i m i n a r y i n v e st i g a t i o n o ' a l l c a s e s cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.Section 1 gave theO''ice o' the #hie' S(ecial&rosecutor (o)er to investigate em(loyeesand o''icials)ho act in a manner )arrantingcriminal or disci(linary action&()I)IO* +ISISS(+.)anodbayan has 'urisdiction to investigate and fileinformation.Sandiganbayan had 'urisdiction to prosecute defined under section - of &+ 1/.$ion%&RS/;$#@/n the 0hite House, the contradictions in $ion )ere mostobvious. He could be bold, yet alsocautious< e''ective, yet o'ten ine(t. 0orEing closely)ith his national security advisor 2later,secre tary o' sta te3, Henry /SS/$GR, he'orsooE the anti-#ommunist (olicies that hehads u ( ( o r t e d t h r o u g h o u t m o s t o ' h i s c a r e e r i n ' a v o r o ' ; T $T ) i t h t h e S S R a n d ra((rochement )ith the #ommunist government o'#hina. /n 19 he began the Strategicrms =imitation TalEs 2S=T3 )ith the Sovietnion. /n *ebruary 1"5 he made a historic tri(to 8ei Bing- -)here he )as receivedby >ao Zedong--thus reversing the .S. (olicy o' notrecognizing the#ommunist government. /n 1"4, a'ter 6 years o' )aging )ar in ?ietnam--including heavy bombing raids on $orth ?ietnam 21"53 and the invasion 21":3 o' #ambodia--theadministration managed to arrange a cease-'ire that )ould last long enough to (ermit.S.)ithdra)al 'rom the /ndochinese )ar zone. 'ter the rab-/srael 0ar in 1"4, thee''orts o' Henry issinger led to a cease-'ire and troo( disengagement in the >iddleast.;omestically, under the banner o' I $e) *ederalism,I $ion attem(tedto shi't im(ortantelements o' governmental (o)er and res(onsibility bacE to state andlocalgovernments. Hecut bacE and o((osed 'ederal )el'are services, (ro(osed anti



busing legislation, and used)age-and-(rice controls to 'ight in'lation. combination o' domestic and internationaldevelo(ments, notably the uintu(ling o' oil (rices by the Organization o' &etroleum (orting#ountries 2O&#3 in 1"4, led to theeconomic recession o' 1"6-"D./n 1"5, $ion s)e(t to an over)helming victory inthe (residential election against

his;emocratic challenger Sen. George S. >#GO?R$--but, ironically, theseeds o' (oli ti calcolla(se had already been so)n. ;uring the cam(aign, a grou( o'burglars )orEing 'or the#ommittee to Re-elect the &resident broEe into theheaduarters o' the ;emocratic $ational#ommittee at the 0atergate o'' ice-a(artment com(le in 0ashington, ;.#., a((arently insearch o' (oliticalintelligence. ttem(ts by the 0hite House to sto( or 'rustrate the ensuinginvestigationsultimately 'ailed )hen $ionJs o)n 0hite House ta(e recordings revealed thatthe(resident and his assistants had engaged in an obstruction o' Bustice./n the meantime he hadbeen 'orced to dro( ?ice-&resident S(iro T. G$0, )ho resigned inOctober 1"4 a'ter he )as charged )ith corru(tion that began during his tenure as 8altimore#ountyeecutive. s the revelations o' )rongdoing (iled u(, $ion became (reoccu(ied

)ith(reserving his (residency. He Bettisoned to( assistants in the 0hite House and 'iredS(ecial&rosecutor rchibald #OA. 'ter the Su(reme #ourt, in a unanimous decision,reuired that hesu((ly #oJs successor, =eon C0ORS/, )ithta(e recordings o' conversations )ith hisadvisors, the House Cudiciary #ommitteevoted to recommend 2Culy 5"-4:, 1"63 a((roval bythe 'ull House o' three articles o'im(eachment against the (resident. On ug. , 1"6, $ionresigned his o''ice and)as succeeded by ?ice-&resident Gerald R. *OR;, )hom he hadselectedto re(lace gne). month a'ter $ionJs resignation, *ord (ardoned him 'oranycrimes he might have committed as (resident. $ion acce(ted the (ardon butinsisted that hismistaEes had been (ersonal and (olitical, not crimina

In Re Gonzales Annotation

Documents

Transcript of In Re Gonzales Annotation