Title
Non vs. Office of the Ombudsman
Case
G.R. No. 251177
Decision Date
Sep 8, 2020
Former ERC commissioners challenged RTC Pasig's jurisdiction in a graft case, alleging improper venue under R.A. No. 10660. Supreme Court ruled in their favor, annulling RTC's orders and dismissing the case due to lack of jurisdiction.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 251177)

Key Dates

  • November 3, 2016: ABP filed certiorari petition against ERC Resolution No. 1-2016 (G.R. No. 227670)
  • November 23, 2016: ABP filed administrative and criminal complaints with the Ombudsman (OMB-C-A-16-0438; OMB-C-C-16-0497)
  • September 29, 2017: Ombudsman found probable cause to charge petitioners under Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019
  • July 12, 2018: Petitioners moved to quash the Information in RTC Pasig (Criminal Case No. R-PSG-18-01280-CR)
  • September 10, 2018 & October 22, 2018: RTC Pasig denied the motion to quash and its reconsideration
  • May 3, 2019: This Court rendered Decision in G.R. No. 227670, voiding the ERC issuances ab initio
  • September 8, 2020: En banc Decision in G.R. No. 251177

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision after 1990)
  • Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
  • Republic Act No. 10660 (amending Sandiganbayan jurisdiction)
  • Rule 110, Section 15(a), Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure

Procedural Background

ERC issued Resolution No. 1-2016 postponing the competitive selection requirement favoring MERALCO affiliates. ABP challenged its validity before this Court and filed complaints with the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman found probable cause and filed an Information in RTC Pasig for violation of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019. Petitioners moved to quash, arguing that under Section 2, R.A. No. 10660, cases against high-ranking officials must be tried in a judicial region other than where the official holds office. The RTC denied the motion and its reconsideration. Petitioners then sought certiorari relief directly from this Court.

Issue Presented

Whether RTC Pasig has jurisdiction over the criminal Information filed against petitioners, given that R.A. No. 10660 requires trial of graft cases against high-ranking officials in a judicial region other than where they hold office.

RTC Pasig’s Order Denying the Motion to Quash

The RTC held that (a) in the absence of implementing rules from the Supreme Court to operationalize R.A. No. 10660’s venue provision, and (b) pursuant to Rule 110, Section 15(a), the default venue is where the offense or its essential ingredients occurred—in this case, in Pasig City where the ERC is seated.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Certiorari as Remedy

  • Certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy warranted when a lower court acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and when no adequate remedy by appeal exists.
  • Denial of a motion to quash is not ordinarily appealable; however, in meritorious cases involving grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction, direct certiorari is proper.

Interpretation of R.A. No. 10660’s Venue Provision

  • Section 2 of R.A. No. 10660 confers exclusive original jurisdiction on RTCs over certain graft cases and expressly provides that such cases “shall be tried in a judicial region other than where the official holds office.”
  • The proviso “subject to the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court” does not delay or condition the venue provision’s application; jurisdiction is conferred by statute and rules of procedure must yield to substantive law.
  • Legislative history confirms the intent to prevent an accused official f
...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.

About Privacy Terms