Case Digest (G.R. No. 116801)
Facts:
Gloria G. Lastimosa, First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu, Petitioner, v. Honorable Ombudsman Conrado Vasquez, Honorable Arturo C. Mojica, Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, and Honorable Franklin Drilon, Secretary of Justice, and Undersecretary of Justice Ramon J. Liwag, Respondents, G.R. No. 116801, April 06, 1995, Supreme Court En Banc, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Lastimosa and Provincial Prosecutor Oliveros E. Kintanar were involved in the handling of complaints filed by Jessica Villacarlos Dayon against Mayor Rogelio Ilustrisimo of Santa Fe, Cebu: a criminal complaint for frustrated rape (OMB-VIS-(CRIM)-93-0140) and an administrative complaint (OMB-VIS-(ADM)-93-0036). The Ombudsman assigned the matter to a graft investigation officer who recommended dismissal for lack of prima facie evidence, but Ombudsman Conrado Vasquez disapproved that recommendation and directed that Ilustrisimo be charged with attempted rape in the Regional Trial Court.
Pursuant to that directive, Deputy Ombudsman Arturo C. Mojica referred the case on May 17, 1994 to Provincial Prosecutor Kintanar for filing the appropriate information; the matter was assigned to petitioner Lastimosa. Petitioner conducted a separate preliminary inquiry and, with Kintanar’s approval, filed on July 4, 1994 an information charging acts of lasciviousness, not attempted rape. After inquiries by Deputy Ombudsman Mojica, and because no attempted-rape information had been filed, Mojica issued a show-cause order on July 27, 1994 directing Kintanar and Lastimosa to explain why they should not be punished for contempt for allegedly refusing to obey the Ombudsman’s directive.
Meanwhile, private complaints by a third party led to administrative and criminal complaints against the two prosecutors (OMB-VIS-(ADM)-94-0189; OMB-VIS-(CRIM)-94-0475). On August 15, 1994 Deputy Ombudsman Mojica placed Lastimosa and Kintanar under preventive suspension for six months pursuant to Rule III, 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman (Administrative Order No. 7) in relation to Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770; Ombudsman Vasquez approved the suspension on August 16, 1994. Acting Justice Secretary Ramon J. Liwag implemented related indorsements and designated an acting provincial prosecutor.
On September 6, 1994 petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Supreme Court seeking to set aside: (a) the May 17, 1994 referral letter and related orders directing filing for attempted rape; (b) the July 27, 1994 show-cause order for indirect contempt; (c) Secretary L...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Ombudsman deputize or designate a provincial/state prosecutor to assist in investigation and prosecution and direct that prosecutor to file a particular information?
- Does the Ombudsman have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute a crime (rape/attempted rape) committed by a public official even if the act is not connected with official duties?
- Can petitioner be held for indirect contempt for refusing to obey the Ombudsman’s directive to file an information?
- Was the preventive suspension of petitioner for six months without pay authorized and valid under the Ombudsman Act?
- Must the contempt proceeding be resolved first as a preju...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)