Case Digest (G.R. No. L-30362)
Facts:
In Commissioner Jose T. Almonte et al. v. Hon. Conrado M. Vasquez and Concerned Citizens (314 Phil. 150, May 23, 1995), petitioners Jose T. Almonte (formerly Commissioner of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau or EIIB), Villamor C. Perez (Chief of EIIB’s Budget and Fiscal Management Division), Nerio Rogado (Chief Accountant), and Elisa Rivera (Record Custodian) sought certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to annul a subpoena duces tecum and related orders issued by the Ombudsman, Hon. Conrado M. Vasquez. The subpoena duces tecum directed the production of “all documents relating to Personal Services Funds for the year 1988 and all evidence, such as vouchers (salary) for the whole plantilla of EIIB for 1988.” These orders arose from an anonymous letter-complaint alleging that savings from unfilled EIIB plantilla positions had been illegally disbursed to fund covert activities, including payments for firearms, support to insurgent groups, purchase of vehicles for peCase Digest (G.R. No. L-30362)
Facts:
- Parties and Context
- Petitioners
- Jose T. Almonte – Former Commissioner, Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB)
- Villamor C. Perez – Chief, EIIB Budget and Fiscal Management Division
- Nerio Rogado – Chief Accountant, EIIB
- Elisa Rivera – Record Custodian, EIIB
- Respondent
- Conrado M. Vasquez – Ombudsman, investigating alleged misuse of EIIB funds
- Anonymous Letter and Allegations
- Savings from unfilled plantilla positions under E.O. No. 127 and RA 6683 alleged to have been diverted to:
- “Ghost agents” or Emergency Intelligence Agents (EIA)
- Support of a failed coup, purchase of mini-UZIs, a Maxima ’87 car
- Other claimed anomalies:
- Unauthorized issuance and pilferage of high-powered firearms
- Collusion with smuggler syndicates for monthly payoffs
- Use of intelligence funds for media propaganda
- Ombudsman Investigation and Subpoenas
- Ombudsman issues subpoena duces tecum to Rogado and Rivera for “all documents relating to Personal Services Funds for 1988 and all evidence, such as salary vouchers for the whole plantilla of EIIB for 1988.”
- Petitioners Almonte and Perez file motions to quash the subpoenas, arguing:
- Documents are classified and privileged
- Subpoenas violate privilege against self-incrimination and due process
- Proceedings Before the Ombudsman and Supreme Court
- June 15, 1990: Subpoena quashed but subpoena duces tecum upheld
- August 6, 1990: Motion for reconsideration denied
- Petitioners file a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before the Supreme Court
Issues:
- Whether an investigation based on an unsigned, anonymous, unverified letter is an “appropriate case” empowering the Ombudsman to subpoena EIIB documents
- Whether the requested documents (1988 Personal Services Funds records and salary vouchers) are classified and beyond the Ombudsman’s subpoena duces tecum power
- Whether the subpoena duces tecum violates petitioners’ privilege against self-incrimination or due process
- Whether permitting anonymous complaints and subpoenas before the Ombudsman infringes petitioners’ right to equal protection
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)