Case Digest (G.R. No. 164678)
Facts:
Office of the Ombudsman v. Mary Ann T. Castro, G.R. No. 164678, October 20, 2005, the Supreme Court First Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is the Office of the Ombudsman; the respondent is Mary Ann T. Castro, an Assistant City Prosecutor. The 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 been filed in court.
Chronology: On June 19, 2001, Charito C. Ocampo filed a complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor against spouses Salvador and Ethel Gonzales of Audionet Trading for alleged violations of the Social Security Act of 1997. Assistant City Prosecutor Victor C. Laborte, after preliminary investigation, recommended in an August 7, 2001 resolution the filing of an information; the information was filed in court on September 28, 2001. The spouses received a copy of Laborte’s unfavorable recommendation on October 1, 2001 and, on October 10, 2001, filed a motion for reconsideration before the Office of the City Prosecutor. On November 7, 2001, respondent Castro, who had been assigned to review the case by Asst. City Prosecutor Oscar Capacio (Chief, Review and Reconsideration Section), filed a comment and recommended dismissal after concluding there was no basis for the complaint; her recommendation was submitted to Capacio and to City Prosecutor Jose Pedrosa for approval.
Complainant Ocampo alleged irregularity, arguing that once an information is filed in court the investigating prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice may no longer entertain motions for reinvestigation or reconsideration, and thus filed the administrative complaint against Castro. The Ombudsman investigated and, in a Decision dated April 4, 2003, found Castro guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and imposed suspension for six months without pay, reasoning that the Office of the City Prosecutor no longer had jurisdiction after the information was filed and that Castro had effectively resolved the merits of the motion without court approval.
Castro appealed the Ombudsman’s Decision to the Court of Appeals. In CA‑G.R. SP No. 77646, the Court of Appeals, by Decision dated July 23, 2004 (penned by Justice Vicente L. Yap), annulled and set aside the Ombudsman’s decision, holding that (a) the Regional/City Prosecutor may exercise the review authority of the Secretary of Justice even after an information is filed; (b) Castro’s comment was reviewed by Capacio and approved by Pedrosa and was therefore presumed to have been performed in the regular performance of her duties; and (c) the trial court was not deprived of jurisdiction since the judge independently evaluated the matter and dismissed the case. The Of...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Assistant City Prosecutor Mary Ann T. Castro usurp the jurisdiction of the trial court by filing a comment and recommending dismissal of the criminal case after an information had been filed in court without l...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)