G.R. No. 108670 - LBC Express, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

On May 31, 2000, petitioner Sharon Castro was charged by the Ombudsman before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 65, Guimaras, with Malversation of Public Funds involving the amount of ₱556,681.53.
The Information alleged that petitioner, as Revenue Officer I of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, was in custody of public funds which she unlawfully misappropriated for personal use.
Petitioner pleaded not guilty on February 16, 2001.

On August 31, 2001, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information, arguing lack of jurisdiction and that the Ombudsman had no authority to investigate or prosecute the case.
Petitioner asserted the Information failed to allege her salary grade, a material fact affecting jurisdiction, citing *Uy v. Sandiganbayan* which limited the Ombudsman’s prosecutorial powers to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
RTC denied the Motion to Quash on September 7, 2001, ruling that jurisdiction depended on the penalty for the offense and that the Ombudsman had prosecutorial authority even for cases cognizable by the RTC, citing the subsequent clarificatory resolution in *Uy*.
The RTC also ruled the Motion to Quash was improperly filed after a plea of not guilty under Section 1, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court.

Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the RTC on December 18, 2001.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was dismissed in its July 22, 2003 Decision, and its Motion for Reconsideration was also denied on March 26, 2004.
Petitioner then filed the present Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Whether the Ombudsman had authority on May 31, 2000, to file Information against petitioner considering the then-prevailing *Uy* ruling limiting prosecutorial powers.
Whether the March 20, 2001 clarificatory resolution in *Uy* could be applied retroactively to petitioner without violating prohibitions against ex-post facto laws and due process.

Did the Ombudsman, as of May 31, 2000, have authority to file the Information for Malversation of Public Funds against the petitioner, given the Supreme Court’s initial ruling in *Uy v. Sandiganbayan* limiting Ombudsman’s prosecutorial powers?

Can the March 20, 2001 clarificatory resolution in *Uy v. Sandiganbayan* be applied retroactively to the petitioner without violating constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws and due process?