Alfredo Ching vs The Secretaty of Justice et al.

GR No. 164317 Feb. 6, 2006

Facts:

Alfredo Ching was the Senior Vice-President of Philippine Blooming Mills, Inc. (PBMI)
Through Ching, PBMI obtained commercial letters of credit from Rizal Commercial Banking
Corporation (RCBC) to finance its importation of assorted goods
PBMI obtained 13 letters of credit from RCBC, and Ching was the undersigned trustee for the
equipment under the letters of credit
When the letters of credit matured, Ching failed to return the equipment or its cash equivalent
to RCBC, subsequently RCBC filed a case of estafa against Ching
The City Prosecutor of found probable cause for estafa and filed 13 different informations
against Ching
Ching filed an appeal to the resolution of the City prosecutor to the then Minister of Justice who
initially dismissed the appeal but granted the same upon a motion for reconsideration
RCBC then re-filed the criminal complaint of estafa against Ching with the City Prosecutor who
found no Probable cause against Ching during preliminary investigation
RCBC appealed the resolution of the City Prosecutor to the Department of Justice (DOJ), the
Secretary of Justice then granted the petition reversing the resolution of the City Prosecutor
The City Prosecutor acting upon the resolution of the Secretary of Justice re-filed the 13
informations against Ching alleging the crime of estafa
Ching filed petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with the CA assailing the resolution
of the Secretary of Jusrice who dismissed the petitions initially and upon a motion for
reconsideration which caused Ching to raise the same issues to the SC

Issue:
Whether or not the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse in discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction when he reversed the resolution of the City Prosecutor
Held:
The acts of a quasi-judicial officer may be assailed by the aggrieved party via a petition for certiorari and
enjoined (a) when necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
(b) when necessary for the orderly administration of justice; (c) when the acts of the officer are without
or in excess of authority; (d) where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for
vengeance; and (e) when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused. The Court also
declared that, if the officer conducting a preliminary investigation (in that case, the Office of the
Ombudsman) acts without or in excess of his authority and resolves to file an Information despite the
absence of probable cause, such act may be nullified by a writ of certiorari.
Indeed, under Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Information shall be
prepared by the Investigating Prosecutor against the respondent only if he or she finds probable cause
to hold such respondent for trial. The Investigating Prosecutor acts without or in excess of his authority
under the Rule if the Information is filed against the respondent despite absence of evidence showing
probable cause therefor. If the Secretary of Justice reverses the Resolution of the Investigating

Prosecutor who found no probable cause to hold the respondent for trial, and orders such prosecutor to
file the Information despite the absence of probable cause, the Secretary of Justice acts contrary to law,
without authority and/or in excess of authority. Such resolution may likewise be nullified in a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
A preliminary investigation, designed to secure the respondent against hasty, malicious and oppressive
prosecution, is an inquiry to determine whether (a) a crime has been committed; and (b) whether there
is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. It is a means of discovering the person or
persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime. Probable cause need not be based on clear and
convincing evidence of guilt, as the investigating officer acts upon probable cause of reasonable belief.
Probable cause implies probability of guilt and requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence
which would justify a conviction. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing
that more likely than not, a crime has been committed by the suspect.
However, while probable cause should be determined in a summary manner, there is a need to examine
the evidence with care to prevent material damage to a potential accuseds constitutional right to
liberty and the guarantees of freedom and fair play37 and to protect the State from the burden of
unnecessary expenses in prosecuting alleged offenses and holding trials arising from false, fraudulent or
groundless charges.
In this case, petitioner failed to establish that the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of
discretion in issuing the assailed resolutions. Indeed, he acted in accord with law and the evidence.

Uy vs Sandiganbayan
GR no. 105965-70 March 20, 2001
Facts:

The 1973 Constitution constitutionalized the creation of the Ombudsman known as the
Tanodbayan

With the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, a new Office of the Ombudsman was
created. The present Ombudsman, as protector of the people, is mandated to 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 to notify the complainants of the action taken and the result
thereof. He possesses the following powers, functions and duties:
1. Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public
official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust,
improper, or inefficient;
2. Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or employee of the
Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as of any
government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter, to perform and
expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent and correct any abuse or
impropriety in the performance of duties.
3. Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or
employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or
prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.
4. Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such limitations as
may be provided by law, to furnish it with copies of documents relating to contracts or
transactions entered into by his office involving the disbursement or use of public funds or
properties, and report any irregularity to the Commission on Audit for appropriate action.
5. Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the
discharge of its responsibilities, and to examine, if necessary, pertinent records and
documents.
6. Publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so warrant and with
due prudence.
7. Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and corruption
in the Government and make recommendations for their elimination and the observance of
high standards of ethics and efficiency.
8. Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such
functions or duties as may be provided by law.
As a new Office of the Ombudsman was established, the then existing Tanodbayan became the
Office of the Special Prosecutor which continued to function and exercise its powers as provided
by law, except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman created under the 1987
Constitution

RA 6770 was passed and gave the Ombudsman not only the duty to receive and relay the
people's grievances, but also the duty to investigate and prosecute for and in their behalf, civil,
criminal and administrative offenses committed by government officers and employees as
embodied in Sections 15 and 11 of the law.

Issue:
Does the Ombudsman have the power to investigate and prosecute cases that fall within the jurisdiction
of the Regular Courts?
Held:
The authority of the Ombudsman to prosecute cases involving public officers and employees before
the regular courts does not conflict with the power of the regular prosecutors under the Department of
Justice to control and direct the prosecution of all criminal actions under Rule 110 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure. The Rules of Court must be read in conjunction with RA 6770 which charged the
Ombudsman with the duty to investigate and prosecute all illegal acts and omissions of public officers
and employees. The Court held in the case of Sanchez vs. Demetriou that the power of the Ombudsman
under Section 15 (1) of RA 6770 is not an exclusive authority but rather a shared or concurrent authority
in respect of the offense charged. Thus, Administrative Order No. 8 issued by the Office of the
Ombudsman provides:
The prosecution of case cognizable by the Sandiganbayan shall be under the direct exclusive control
and supervision of the Office of the Ombudsman. In cases cognizable by regular Courts, the control and
supervision by the Office of the Ombudsman is only in Ombudsman cases in the sense defined
(therein). The law recognizes a concurrence of jurisdiction between the Office of the Ombudsman and
other investigative agencies of government in the prosecution of cases cognizable by regular courts.
Sec. 15. 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. It 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
Sec. 11. Structural Organization. x x x
xxx
(3) The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall be composed of the Special Prosecutor and his prosecution
staff. The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall be an organic component of the Office of the
Ombudsman and shall be under the supervision and control of the Ombudsman.
(4) The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall, under the supervision and control and upon 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 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 any
crime committed by a public officer or employee.
Sec. 15 and 11 of RA 6770 provides that the Sandiganbayan has primary jurisdiction over cases falling
with in its exclusive jurisdiction, this means that the Sandiganbayan can take over the investigation and
prosecution of the crimes falling within its exclusive jurisdiction from the regular courts at any time.

Decin vs Tayco
GR no. 149991
Facts:

The respondents are 5 police officers charged with murder by the petitioner, Sevilla Decin wife
of the deceased

During preliminary investigation the City Prosecutor did not find any probable cause against the
defendants but found probable cause against one SPO2 Jude De La Rama, the City Prosecutor
then submitted this resolution to the Military Ombudsman for approval since the accused are
member of the Philippine National Police which in turn was approved by the same

Decin then filed an appeal of the resolution of the City Prosecutor to the Department of Justice
(DOJ)

The DOJ then submitted the same appeal to the Military Ombudsman who denied the said
appeal

Subsequently De La Rama was arraigned and pleaded not guilty, the DOJ then issued a modified
resolution to the appeal filed by Decin and directed the City Prosecutor to file criminal
informations of murder against the five defendants

Defendants filed for an appeal of the Modified Resolution of the DOJ which was denied for late
fiing

Issue:
Can the DOJ take act on the case when it was already referred to the Ombudsman
Held:
The Ombudsman and the DOJ have concurrent jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation, the
respective heads of said offices came up with OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001 for the proper
guidelines of their respective prosecutors in the conduct of their investigations, to wit:
OMB-DOJ JOINT CIRCULAR NO. 95-001, Series of 1995
xxx
1.
Preliminary investigation and prosecution of offenses committed by public officers and employees
IN RELATION TO OFFICE whether cognizable by the SANDIGANBAYAN or the REGULAR COURTS, and
whether filed with the OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN or with the OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL/CITY
PROSECUTOR shall be under the control and supervision of the office of the OMBUDSMAN.
2.
Unless the Ombudsman under its Constitutional mandate finds reason to believe otherwise,
offenses NOT IN RELATION TO OFFICE and cognizable by the REGULAR COURTS shall be investigated and
prosecuted by the OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL/CITY PROSECUTOR, which shall rule thereon with finality.

It is undeniable that both the City Prosecutor and the DOJ, on their own initiative, duly referred
petitioners case to the Ombudsman for the latters resolution in the exercise of his concurrent
jurisdiction with the DOJ in accordance with OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001 dated October 5,
1995 (Joint Circular). Noteworthy is the fact that the referral made by the City Prosecutor
on September 16, 1997 came earlier than the referral of the DOJ, which is dated May 19, 1998, likewise
pursuant to the Joint Circular. When the Ombudsman approved the City Prosecutors Resolution on
October 31, 1997 which affirmed the prosecutors dismissal of the charges against the respondents, it
then and there took cognizance of the case in the exercise of his primary jurisdiction, and, by doing so,
such exercise of jurisdiction barred the DOJ from intervening in the preliminary investigation
proceedings. In other words, the DOJ was effectively deprived of its power to assert its jurisdiction
when the Ombudsman took cognizance of the case pursuant to the Joint Circular.

Laxina vs Ombudsman
GR No. 153155

Facts:

Manuel D. Laxina, Sr. was the Barangay Captain Chairman of Batasan Hills, Quezon City and was
accused of attempted rape by Evangeline Ursal, Barangay Clerk of Batasan Hills
Ursal brought a compliant-affidavit to the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)
charging Laxina of grave misconduct for the alleged attempted rape
The DILG referred the case to the Quezon City Council
Subsequently Ursal brought the same complaint-affidavit to the Office of the Ombudsman who
found him guilty of grave misconduct and ordered his dismissal
Meanwhile, Ursal asked the City Council to waive its jurisdiction in favor of the Ombudsman.
The City Council merely noted Ursals motion

Issue:
Does the Office of the Ombudsman have jurisdiction over the case
Held:
The mandate of the Ombudsman to investigate complaints against erring public officials, derived from
both the Constitution and the law gives it jurisdiction over the complaint against petitioner. The
Constitution has named the Ombudsman and his Deputies as the protectors of the people who shall act
promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the
government.[40] To fulfill this mandate, R.A. No. 6770, or the Ombudsman Act of 1989, was enacted,
giving the Ombudsman or his Deputies jurisdiction over complaints on all kinds of malfeasance,
misfeasance and non-feasance against officers or employees of the government, or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality therefor, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and the
disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials, except those who may be removed only
by impeachment or over members of Congress and the Judiciary. On the other hand, under R.A. No.
7160 or the Local Government Code, the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan has disciplinary
authority over any elective barangay official. Without a doubt, the Office of the Ombudsman has
concurrent jurisdiction with the Quezon City Council over administrative cases against elective officials
such as petitioner.

Ribaya vs Binamira-Parcia
AM no. MTJ-04-1547
Facts:

Judge Aurora Binamira-Parcia conducted preliminary investigation against Spouses Ribaya for
allegedly committing estafa without examining witnesses, no affidavit of any named witnesses
was attached, one of the witnesses was fictional, and that a warrant of arrest against the
accused were issued on the same day
The Daughter of the accused, Josefina Ribaya, filed an administrative complaint against Judge
Ribaya based on the irregularities in the preliminary investigation
Furthermore, Josefina Ribaya contends that the respondent judge has no authority to conduct
preliminary investigation

Issue:
Wheter or not the Respondent Judge Binamira-Parcia has the authority to conduct Preliminary
Investigation
Held:
Among the officers authorized by Sec. 2, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure to conduct
preliminary investigation are the city prosecutors and judges of the MTC and MCTC. Although judges of
inferior courts are authorized to conduct preliminary investigation of all crimes within their jurisdiction,
the task is essentially an executive function.
City judges then were authorized to conduct preliminary investigation and examination. But even
then, we also held that the provisions of Rule 112 granting city judges the authority to conduct
preliminary investigation did not apply to judges of cities the charters of which authorized the city fiscal
only to conduct preliminary investigation of criminal complaints.
This ruling was, in fact, integrated into the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under Sec. 1, Rule
110, criminal actions in chartered cities are instituted by filing the complaint only with the City
Prosecutor. The rule implies that the task of conducting preliminary investigation in these cities is now
lodged with the Office of the City Prosecutor. Consequently, inferior court judges of cities whose
charters authorize only the fiscal to conduct preliminary investigation are no longer allowed to perform
this function.