ORAP
VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. Nos. L-50508-11, October 11, 1985
Facts:
Tanodbayan Special Prosecutor Rodolfo B. Aquino filed
four informations before the Sandiganbayan charging petitioner Vicente S. Orap
Presiding Judge of the Municipal Court of Mangatarem, Pangasinan, with
violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The gravamen of all these charges was to
the effect that the accused on different occasions unlawfully and feloniously
received and took various sums of money from several persons in connection with
a criminal case pending before his sala.
Before his arraignment, petitioner filed a motion to
quash the informations on the ground that the officer who signed the same had no
authority to do so and that, corollarily, the Sandiganbayan did not acquire
jurisdiction over the offenses charged. The respondent court denied the motion
to quash. Petitioner verbally moved for the reconsideration of the order but
the relief sought was denied.
Hence, petitoner filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition before the SC. It is the petitioner's position that the Tanodbayan
has no power to conduct preliminary investigations, file informations and
prosecute criminal cases against judges and their appurtenant judicial staff. He
contended that under the Section 9(a) of the Tanodbayan Decree, the courts,
judges and other appurtenant judicial staff, among others, are beyond the reach
of the Tanodbayan, and that only administrative acts of agencies of the
government, whether or not criminal in character, are within the powers of said
official.
Issue:
Has the Tanodbayan the authority to conduct a preliminary
investigation of a complaint charging a municipal judge and his clerk of court
with violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019 and, upon a finding of
prima facie case, proceed to file the corresponding information before the
Sandiganbayan and prosecute the same?
Held:
Yes. Petitioner’s argument overlooks the fact that under
the decree, the Tanodbayan functions not only as an ombudsman, but as
prosecutor as well.
As
ombudsman, his investigatory powers are limited
to complaints initiated against officers and personnel of administrative
agencies, as defined in Section 9(a) of the law. To
that extent, we agree with the petitioner's interpretation of the law that
insofar as administrative complaints are concerned, the courts, judges and
their appurtenant judicial staff are outside the Tanodbayan's investigatory
power. The reason for such exclusion is quite evident: under Section 6, Article
10 of the Constitution, it is the Supreme Court that exercises administrative supervision
over all courts and their personnel and, therefore, is the proper forum to which
administrative complaints involving judges and the court's personnel should be
lodged.
As
prosecutor, however, the authority of
the Tanodbayan is primary and without exceptions.
His powers are defined in Sections 17 and 19 of P.D. 1607, as follows:
SEC. 17. Office of the
Chief Special Prosecutor.—There is hereby created in the Office of the
Tanodbayan an Office of the Chief Special Prosecutor composed of a Chief
Special Prosecutor, an Assistant Chief Special Prosecutor, and nine (9) Special
Prosecutors, who shall have the same qualifications as provincial and city
fiscals and who shall be appointed by the President; ...
The Chief Special Prosecutor, the Assistant Chief Special
Prosecutor and the Special Prosecutors shall have the exclusive authority to
conduct preliminary investigation of all cases cognizable, by the
Sandiganbayan: to file informations therefor and to direct and control the
prosecution of said cases therein Provided, however that the Tanodbayan may
upon recommendation of the Chief Special Prosecutor, designate any fiscal,
state prosecutor or lawyer in the government service to act as Special
Prosecutor to assist in the investigation and prosecution of all cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan who shall not receive any additional
compensation except such allowances, per diems and travelling expenses as the
Tanodbayan may determine in accordance with existing laws, rules and
regulations.
xxx xxx xxx
SEC. 19. Prosecution of
Public Personnel or Other Person.—If the Tanodbayan has reason to believe that
any public official employee, or other person has acted in a manner warranting
criminal or disciplinary action or proceedings, he shall cause him to be
investigated by the Office of the Chief Special Prosecutor who shall file and
prosecute the corresponding criminal or administrative case before the
Sandiganbayan or the proper court or before the proper administrative agency.
In case of failure of justice, the Tanodbayan shall make the appropriate
recommendations to the administrative agency concerned.
Section 17 of the Decree, in unequivocal term, confers
upon the Tanodbayan, through the Chief Special Prosecutor and the
Special Prosecutors, the exclusive authority to "conduct preliminary
investigation of all cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, to file
informations therefor, and to direct and control the prosecution of said cases
therein." If, as petitioner contends, judges, and other court
personnel lie outside the investigatory power of the Tanodbayan, then no judge
or court employee could ever be brought to justice for crimes and offenses
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, for lack of proper officer or entity
authorized to conduct the preliminary investigation on complaints of such
nature against them. This absurd situation the law could never have intended,
considering that the Office of the Tanodbayan was purposely created to "give
effect to the constitutional right of the people to petition the government for
redress of grievances and to promote higher standards of integrity and
efficiency in the government service."
Petition dismissed.
0
Comments
