Almonte v.

Vasquez
244 SCRA 286 | May 23, 1995
MENDOZA, J.
Doctrine: The Office of the Ombudsman is different from other investigatory and prosecutory
agencies of the government because those subject to its jurisdiction are public officials who,
through official pressure and influence, can quash, delay or dismiss investigations held against
them
FACTS
Ombudsman Vasquez required Rogado and Rivera of Economic Intelligence and
Investigation (EIIB) to produce all documents relating to Personal Service Funds
year 1998.
The subpoena duces tecum was issued in connection with the investigation of funds
representing savings from unfilled positions in the EIIB which are legally
disbursed.
Almonte and Perez denied the anomalous activities that circulate around the EIIB office.
They moved to quash the subpoena duces tecum claiming the privilege of an agency of
the Government
Petitioner Almonte was formerly the Commissioner of the EIIB, while Perez is Chief of
the EIIBs budget and Fiscal Management Division.
The subpoena duces tecum was issued by the Ombudsman in connection with his
investigation of an anonymous letter alleging that funds representing savings
from unfilled positions in the EIIB had been illegally disbursed.
o The letter written by a concerned citizen and an employee of the EIIB was
addressed to the Secretary of Finance with copies furnished to several government
offices, including the Office of the Ombudsman
Petitioners moved to quash the subpoena and the subpoena duces tecum.
o The June 15, 1990 Order of the Ombudsman granted the motion to quash
the subpoena, but NOT the subpoena duces tecum
o The Ombudsman did not quash the subpoena duces tecum because he ruled that
the petitioners were not being forced to produce evidence against themselves,
since the subpoena duces tecum was directed to the Chief Accountant, petitioner
Nerio Rogado
In addition, the Ombudsman ordered the Chief of Records, a section of the EIIB,
petitioner Elisa Rivera, to produce before the investigator all documents, salary
vouchers for the whole plantilla of the EIIB, within ten (10) days from receipt hereof
ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. Whether or not the Ombudsman may start an investigation on the basis of an anonymous
letter without violating the equal protection clause Yes
Petitioners argue that in all forums and tribunals the aggrieved parties
can only hale parties via their verified complaints or sworn statements with
their identities fully disclosed, while the proceedings and the investigation in
the Office of the Ombudsman was initiated via receipt of an anonymous letter.

Flameno C2020 | 1
It is these set of facts that petitioners allege to have been violative of the equal
protection clause.
o The Constitution itself provided the procedure to be followed in filing
a complaint/initiating proceedings in the Office of the Ombudsman
o It is apparent that in permitting the filing of the complaints in any
form and in a manner, the framers of the Constitution took into
account the well-known reticence of the people, which keep them from
complaining against official wrongdoings.
o The Office of the Ombudsman is different from other
investigatory and prosecutory agencies of the government
because those subject to its jurisdiction are public officials who,
through official pressure and influence, can quash, delay or
dismiss investigations held against them
PETITION IS DISMISSED

Flameno C2020 | 2