PEREZ v SANDIGANBAYANG.R. No. 166062 | September 26, 2006 | Chico-Nazario | Office of the Special Prosecutor

PETITIONER: Salvador Perez and Juanita ApostolRESPONDENTS: Hon. Sandiganbayan (2nd Div), and the People of the Philippines, represented by Office of the Special ProsecutorSUMMARY: Salvador and Juanita are Mayor and Treasurer of San Manuel, Pangasinan, respectively. They “willfully, unlawfully, and criminally caused the purchase of 1 computer unit costing P120,000 acquisition by personal canvass,” violating Sec. 362 and 367 of the LGC. No public bidding occurred and no Committee of Awards was constituted to approve the procurement Salvador and Juanita gave Mobil Link Enterprises/Starlet Sales Center undue advantage or preference through manifest partiality, showing evident bad faith and gross, inexcusable negligence, but this was not included in the original information, so it was recommended by the Special Prosecutor that the information be amended to show the manner of the commission of the offense, based on the Ombudsman’s margin notes in the original information. The amended information was admitted. The petitioners challenge this, saying that the Sandiganbayan committed GAD in accepting the amended information, which had no approval from the Ombudsman, amounting to denial of due process. The SC granted the petition.DOCTRINE: The Ombudsman may delegate powers to the Office of the Special Prosecutor, but such delegation must be shown by clear intent. The Ombudsman’s power of control would be seriously hampered if the former were authorized to file informations in the first instance. This is because while the Ombudsman has full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in the Sandiganbayan. Once the case has been filed with said court, it is the Sandiganbayan, and no longer the Ombudsman, which has full control of the case so much so that the informations may not be dismissed, without the approval of the said court.

FACTS:1. We took up this case before. That is a fact.

ISSUES: Whether or not the Office of the Special Prosecutor has the power to file informations without delegation from the Ombudsman.

HELD/RATIO: NO. The Ombudsman’s margin notes order was to "study whether the accused, assuming arguendo that there was no overprice, gave unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to the seller of the subject computer” and “submit your recommendation soonest.”

It is clear that the recommendation must be submitted to one who has authority to implement such recommendation. The Ombudsman has the power to file informations, as well as the power to delegate his powers. Office Order No. 40-05 delegates the disposition of administrative and criminal cases (filing informations) to the Deputy Ombudsman, but NOT the Special Prosecutor (which is included in the Office of the Ombudsman). All that is delegated to the Special Prosecutor is the discretional authority to review and modify the

Deputy Ombudsman-authorized information, but without departing from the basic resolution.

Deputy Ombudsman and Special Prosecutor are given the same rank and salary (RA 6770), but they do NOT have the same functions.

Since there is no express delegation, the Court looked into whether or not there was an implied delegation. RA 6770 provides that the powers of the OSP include: conducting preliminary investigations and prosecute criminal cases w/in jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan, enter into plea-bargaining agreements, and perform other duties assigned by Ombudsman. Respondents argue the doctrine of Qualified Political Agency, saying that since the amended information has not been disapproved by the Ombudsman, it has his tacit approval. The SC said no. This doctrine does not apply to the Office of the Ombudsman, which is an apolitical agency.

Granted, this is a procedural defect and the OSP’s Memorandum (amended info) may later be approved by the Ombudsman.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED.

D2018 | S. CRISOSTOMO | CONSTI 1