submit a written answer within seventy-two hours from receipthereof….” ●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 affidavitsto 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 evidencewith 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.
 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,JosefinaL.Tungal,EmmaL.Bernales,LeticiaLagunsay, and Evangeline Gallito. (11 respondents all in all) SUMMARY: Enoc and 10 others are government employees who were chargedwithmalversationandviolationoftheAnti-GraftandCorruptPractices Act. They filed a motion to quash the information, arguingthat the Ombudsman has no authority to prosecute offenses doneby public officers which are cognizable by the regular courts. TheRTC granted such motion; hence, this petition for Certiorari. The SC ruled in favor of the Ombudsman, invoking one its ownresolutionwheretheydeclaredthattheauthorityoftheOmbudsman to conduct Preliminary Investigations and ProsecutecriminaloffensesdonebypublicofficialsandgovernmentemployeesisnotlimitedtothosecasescognizablebytheSandiganbayan. In construing certain provisions of RA 6770, theCourt held that the law did not intend the Ombudsman’s exercise otpowertobelimitedtothosecasescognizablebytheSandiganbayan.Therefore,theOmbudsman’spetitionwasgranted, and dismissed criminal cases were reinstated.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 71 pages?
Government, Separation of Powers, Supreme Court of the United States, The Court, Sc