Administrative Law – Control of Administrative Action.
15 Office of the Ombudsman v Enoc
G.R No. 145957-68 | 25 January 2002 | Mendoza, J.
PETITIONER: Office of the Ombudsman
RESPONDENTS: Ruben Enoc, Susana B. Abawag, Dominador D. Dala, Carlos L.
Denia, Elvira I. Lim, Teodoro Yos, Diomedes E. Mirafuentes, Josefina L. Tungal,
Emma L. Bernales, Leticia Lagunsay, and Evangeline Gallito. (11 respondents all in
all)
SUMMARY:
Enoc and 10 others are government employees who were charged with malversation
and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. They filed a motion to
quash the information, arguing that the Ombudsman has no authority to prosecute
offenses done by public officers which are cognizable by the regular courts. The
RTC granted such motion; hence, this petition for Certiorari.
The SC ruled in favor of the Ombudsman, invoking one its own resolution where they
declared that the authority of the Ombudsman to conduct Preliminary Investigations
and Prosecute criminal offenses done by public officials and government employees
is not limited to those cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. In construing certain
provisions of RA 6770, the Court held that the law did not intend the Ombudsman’s
exercise ot power to be limited to those cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
Therefore, the Ombudsman’s petition was granted, and dismissed criminal cases
were reinstated.
PROVISIONS:
RA 6770, Section 15(1). Powers, Functions and Duties. — The Office of the
Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties:
(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.t has primary
jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this
primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of
Government, the investigation of such cases;
RA 6770 Section 11(4) . Structural Organization. — The authority and
responsibility for the exercise of the mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman and
for the discharge of its powers and functions shall be vested in the Ombudsman,
who shall have supervision and control of the said office.
xxx
(4) The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall, under the supervision and control and
upon the authority of the Ombudsman, have the following powers:
(a) To conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal cases within
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan;
(b) To enter into plea bargaining agreements; and
(c) To perform such other duties assigned to it by the Ombudsman.
The Special Prosecutor shall have the rank and salary of a Deputy Ombudsman.
DOCTRINE:
Section 15 of RA 6770 gives the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. The law defines such primary jurisdiction as
authorizing the Ombudsman "to take over, at any stage, from any investigatory
agency of the government, the investigation of such cases." The grant of this
authority does not necessarily imply the exclusion from its jurisdiction of cases
involving public officers and employees cognizable by other courts. 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. Indeed, it
must be stressed that the powers granted by the legislature to the Ombudsman are
very broad and encompass all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance
committed by public officers and employees during their tenure of office.
FACTS:
 This case is a petition for Certiorari assailing the order of the Davao Del Sur
RTC, Branch 19, dismissing the criminal case against respondents.
o Enoc and 10 Others were employed with the Office of the
Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC), Provincial Office, Digos
Davao Del Sur, and all had a salary grade of below 27.
o As none of the respondents were of the requisite rank for the
cases to be filed before the Sandiganbayan (under RA 8249), their
cases were filed with the RTC.
 They were charged with:
o 11 counts of malversation through falsification, in connection
with alleged purchases of medicine and food assistance for
cultural community members; and
o 1 count of violation of RA 3019, Sec. 3(e), in connection with
purchases of supplies for the OSCC made without
bidding/canvass.
 Enoc and 10 Others moved to quash the information, arguing that the
Ombudsman had no authority to prosecute graft cases falling within the
jurisdiction of the regular courts. (Uy v. Sandiganbayan)
o RTC granted such motion, dismissing the case without prejudice to
the refiling of the information by the appropriate officer.
 The Ombudsman assailed the dismissal of this case, arguing that it can
prosecute graft cases that are cognizable by the regular courts.
ISSUES/RATIOS:
W/N The Office of the Ombudsman can prosecute graft cases that are
cognizable by regular courts? YES
 The Court reconsidered its ruling in Uy v. Sandiganbayan, ruling in a
resolution that the Ombudsman has the power to prosecute not only graft
cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, but also those
cognizable by the regular courts.
 Quoting the resolution of the SC, dated 20 March 2001:
o The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the
Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified.
Administrative Law – Control of Administrative Action.
o The law does not make a distinction between cases cognizable by
the Sandiganbayan and those cognizable by regular courts.
o It has been held that the clause "any illegal act or omission of any
public official" is broad enough to embrace any crime committed
by a public officer or employee.
 The reference in RA 6770 to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan (See:
Sec. 15(1) and Sec. 11(4)) should not be construed as confining the scope
of the Investigatory and Prosecutory power of the Ombudsman to such
cases.
o Though RA 6770 gives the Ombudsman “primary jurisdiction” over
cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, it does not imply that the
exclusion from its jurisdiction of cases involving public officers and
employees cognizable by other courts.
 Sec. 11(4) of RA 6770, referring to the limited authority of the special
prosecutor, should not be equated with the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
o Office of the Special Prosecutor may only conduct Preliminary
Investigations and Prosecute criminal cases within the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan.
o The Congress did not intend to limit the investigatory and
prosecutor powers of the Ombudsman to those cognizable by the
Office of the Special Prosecutor.
 Ombudsman is mandated by law to act on all complaints
against officers and government employees when the
evidence warrants.
 In sum, the Ombudsman has the authority to prosecute the present case
even if it is within the jurisdiction of regular courts.

RULING: WHEREFORE, the order, dated October 7, 2000, of the Regional Trial
Court, branch 19 of Digos, Davao del Sur is SET ASIDE and Criminal Case Nos.
374(97) to 385(97) are hereby REINSTATED and the Regional Trial Court is
ORDERED to try and decide the same.