Submit a written answer within seventy two hours from

This preview shows page 52 - 54 out of 71 pages.

submit a written answer within seventy-two hours from receipt hereof….” It also contravened Sec. 4, Rule 11, Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman o (a) If the complaint is not under oath or is based only on official reports, the investigating officer shall require the complaint or supporting witnesses to execute affidavits to substantiate the complaints. o (b) After such affidavits have been secured, the investigating officer shall issue an order, attaching thereto a copy of the affidavits and other supporting documents, directing the respondent to submit, within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, his counter-affidavits and controverting evidence with proof of service thereof on the complainant. The complainant may file reply affidavits within ten (10) days after service of the counter-affidavits x x x Graft Investigation Officer Soquilon found reasonable grounds to investigate further and even recommended the case be docked immediately and assigned to him for investigation. He was convinced that the granting of the tax refunds was so anomalous that he assured the recovery of the tax refunds and the prosecution and conviction of BIR officials for graft and corruption. The BIR officials concerned were never furnished with a summary of the complaint and were not given opportunity to submit counter-affidavits and controverting evidence. Instead, they were summarily ordered to appear before the Ombudsman and produce the case dockets. RULING: Petition GRANTED.
Image of page 52
[15] Office of the Ombudsman v Enoc G.R No. 145957-68 | 25 January 2002 | Mendoza, J. PETITIONER: Office of the Ombudsman RESPONDENTS: Ruben Enoc, Susana B. Abawag, Dominador D. Dala, Carlos L. Denia, Elvira I. Lim, Teodoro Yos, Diomedes E. Mirafuentes, Josefina L. Tungal, Emma L. Bernales, Leticia Lagunsay, and Evangeline Gallito. (11 respondents all in all) SUMMARY: Enoc and 10 others are government employees who were charged with malversation and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. They filed a motion to quash the information, arguing that the Ombudsman has no authority to prosecute offenses done by public officers which are cognizable by the regular courts. The RTC granted such motion; hence, this petition for Certiorari. The SC ruled in favor of the Ombudsman, invoking one its own resolution where they declared that the authority of the Ombudsman to conduct Preliminary Investigations and Prosecute criminal offenses done by public officials and government employees is not limited to those cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. In construing certain provisions of RA 6770, the Court held that the law did not intend the Ombudsman’s exercise ot power to be limited to those cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s petition was granted, and dismissed criminal cases were reinstated.
Image of page 53
Image of page 54

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 71 pages?

  • Fall '19
  • Government, Separation of Powers, Supreme Court of the United States, The Court, Sc

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes