Case Digest (G.R. No. 164678) Core Legal Reasoning
Core Legal Reasoning
Facts:
The case involves the Office of the Ombudsman as the petitioner and Mary Ann T. Castro as the respondent. The dispute began with a complaint filed on June 19, 2001, by Charito C. Ocampo against Salvador and Ethel Gonzales of Audionet Trading for violating the Social Security Act of 1997. Following a preliminary investigation, Asst. City Prosecutor Victor C. Laborte recommended the filing of an information against the Gonzales couple, which was executed on September 28, 2001. On October 10, 2001, the Gonzales spouses filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the earlier resolution without seeking leave from the court, leading to a controversial sequence of events. Respondent Castro filed a comment on the motion recommending its dismissal on November 7, 2001, asserting that her actions were in line with directives from her superior, Asst. City Prosecutor Oscar Capacio. Ocampo, in turn, argued that Castro's comment was inappropriate since the case was already in court and any action sh Case Digest (G.R. No. 164678) Expanded Legal Reasoning
Expanded Legal Reasoning
Facts:
- Parties and background
- Petitioner: Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas). Respondent: Assistant City Prosecutor Mary Ann T. Castro.
- Case arose from an administrative complaint docketed as OMB-V-A-02-0124-C charging Castro with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for filing a comment and recommending dismissal of a criminal complaint after an information had already been filed in court.
- Factual chronology
- June 19, 2001 — Charito C. Ocampo filed a complaint against spouses Salvador and Ethel Gonzales of Audionet Trading for violation of the Social Security Act of 1997 before the Office of the City Prosecutor.
- August 7, 2001 — Asst. City Prosecutor Victor C. Laborte issued a resolution recommending the filing of an information for non-remittance of SSS premiums.
- September 28, 2001 — An information was filed in court against the spouses Gonzales.
- October 1, 2001 — The spouses received a copy of Laborte’s unfavorable recommendation.
- October 10, 2001 — The spouses filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the Office of the City Prosecutor (without first securing leave of court).
- October 30, 2001 — According to Castro, Asst. City Prosecutor Oscar Capacio, Chief of the Review and Reconsideration Section, ordered reinvestigation and assigned the case to Castro.
- November 7, 2001 — Castro filed a Comment on the motion for reconsideration and recommended dismissal of the complaint, submitting it for review to Capacio and approval to City Prosecutor Jose Pedrosa.
- October 7, 2002 — The trial court considered the motion to withdraw information based on the motion for reconsideration and comment, and dismissed the case for lack of basis.
- October 17, 2002 / April 4, 2003 (Ombudsman record references) — The Ombudsman rendered a decision finding Castro guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and meted a penalty of six months suspension without pay.
- July 23, 2004 — The Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 77646) annulled and set aside the Ombudsman decision.
- October 20, 2005 — The Supreme Court issued the appealed decision (G.R. No. 164678) resolving the Ombudsman’s petition for review on certiorari.
- Procedural posture and positions
- Ombudsman’s position: Castro acted irregularly and usurped the trial court’s jurisdiction by filing a comment and recommending dismissal after the information was already filed, without leave of court; such act constituted conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
- Castro’s defense: She acted pursuant to orders from superiors to reinvestigate; her comment was part of the preliminary investigation/reconsideration process authorized under the Manual for Prosecutors and DOJ Circular No. 70; her action was recommendatory and did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction; her superiors approved her action and the trial judge dismissed the case.
- Court of Appeals: Annulled the Ombudsman’s decision, holding that the Regional/City Prosecutor may exercise the Secretary of Justice’s review authority even after an information is filed, and that Castro’s comment was presumptively regular and only recommendatory.
- Supreme Court: Took up the Ombudsman’s petition raising the sole issue whether Castro usurped the trial court’s jurisdiction by filing the Comment and recommending dismissal of a criminal case already filed in court.
Issues:
- Primary issue
- Whether Assistant City Prosecutor Mary Ann T. Castro usurped the jurisdiction of the trial court and thereby committed conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service by filing a Comment and recommending dismissal of a criminal complaint after an information had been filed in court, without leave of court.
- Subsidiary/legal questions arising from the facts
- Whether the City or Regional Prosecutor (or their delegates) retain authority to review or reinvestigate a prosecutor’s resolution once an information has been filed in court.
- Whether filing a motion for reconsideration and a prosecutorial comment after filing of an information (without prior leave of court) is permissible as part of the preliminary investigation and consistent with due process.
- Whether Castro’s actions, being performed pursuant to orders and with subsequent approvals, give rise to administrative liability in the absence of a specific law, rule or clear usurpation of court jurisdiction.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)