Professional Documents
Culture Documents
money orders, paid vouchers, payrolls and other cash items that
she was officially accountable for. Petitioner, who was bonded for
P100,000.00, was found to have made cash payments in the total
amount of six thousand one hundred seventy-one pesos and
twenty three centavos (P6,171.23), hereunder itemized:
Nature of Claims
Date
Amount
Telephone Rental
Nov. 1980
P 250.00
(Addendum)
Mar. 1981
570.00
DIAZ,
petitioner,
vs.
DECISION
VITUG, J.:
Milagros L. Diaz, erstwhile postmistress of Tandag, Surigao del
Sur, was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
malversation of public funds defined by Article 217, paragraph 4,
of the Revised Penal Code, in a decision rendered by the
Sandiganbayan on 15 March 1996 in Criminal Case No. 11295.
The Sandiganbayan adjudged:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court hereby finds
the accused Milagros L. Diaz GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of malversation of public funds as described and
penalized in Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code for the amount of
P9,813.99, and after considering the mitigating circumstances of
full restitution in her favor and applying the provisions of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, hereby sentences her to suffer the
following penalties:
385.20
Jun. 1979
Aug. 1979
1,020.20
Dec. 1979
684.80
Jan. 1980
353.55
Oct. 1980
64.00
Dec. 1980
46.00
Dec. 1980
SANDIGANBAYAN,
Dec. 1980
Aug. 1981
Nov. 1981
50.50
25.50
640.00
468.50
Jan. 1982
32.00
Jan. 1982
6.00
Sept. 1982
Feb. 1982
12.50
Feb. 1982
238.95
Oct. 1982
5.00
Nov. 1982
250.50
228.44
839.59
P6, 171.23[2]
The audit team also found petitioner to have sold postage stamps
in the sum of P8,020.40 which she had failed to record in her cash
book, and since Quijada neither considered the cash items in the
aforesaid amount of P6,171.23 as having been validly disbursed,
he reported that petitioner had incurred a total cash shortage of
P14,191.63. He then referred the matter to the Regional Director
of the Bureau of Posts.
xxx
xxx
Sandiganbayan
noticeably
depended
on
the
Facts:
Petitioner Atty. Ronaldo P. Ledesma is the Chairman
of the First Division of the Board of Special Inquiry (BSI) of the
Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID). In a letter-complaint
filed by Augusto Somalio with the Fact Finding and Intelligence
Bureau (FIIB) of the Office of the Ombudsman, an investigation
was requested on alleged anomalies surrounding the extension of
the Temporary Resident Visas (TRVs) of two (2) foreign
nationals. The FIIB investigation revealed seven (7) other cases
of TRV extensions tainted with similar irregularities.
Also charged was Caronongan and Ang Board Member and
Executive Assistant, respectively. But complaint against them was
dismiss.
The FIIB filed in the ombudsman criminal and an administrative
charge , for nine (9) counts of violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act and for falsification of public documents(crim
aspect), and, for nine (9) counts of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct,
Falsification of Public Documents and Gross Neglect of
Duty(admin aspect) against Ladesma.
The illegal acts alleged were signing the Memorandum of
Transmittal to the Board of Commission (BOC) of the BID,
forwarding the applications for TRV extension of several aliens
whose papers were questionable.
Ombudsman dismissed the criminal case for insufficiency of
evidence. It resolved the administrative case recommending
Suspension from the service for one (1) year for Conduct
Prejudicial to the Interest of the Service.
A reconsideration was file be Ladesma to ombudsman which
reduce suspension to 9 months. Petition for review was filed by
petitioner on the decision of ombydsman which again reduce the
suspension to 6 mo. And 1 day. (gusto kasi ni Ladesma walang
suspension kaya appeal ng appeal). Then finaly to SC petition for
review on certiorari.
Issue: 1) WON CA overlooked facts, that if considered will free
petitioner from liability or from being suspended. (not relevant)
2) won CA erred in ruling that decision of ombudsman is not mere
advisory .
3) won the findings of the ombudsman encroaches the BID power.
(3)
That the refusal, without just cause, of any officer to comply with
such an order of the Ombudsman to penalize an erring officer or
employee is a ground for disciplinary action, is a strong indication
that the Ombudsmans recommendation is not merely advisory in
nature but is actually mandatory within the bounds of law.
Also a deliberation of the constitutional commission between
MONSOD and Rodrigo, It is thus clear that the framers of our
Constitution intended to create a stronger and more effective
Ombudsman, independent and beyond the reach of political
influences and vested with powers that are not merely persuasive
in character. The Constitutional Commission left to Congress to
empower the Ombudsman with prosecutorial functions which it did
when RA 6770 was enacted.
3) This should not be interpreted as usurpation by the
Ombudsman of the authority of the head of office or any officer
concerned. It has long been settled that the power of the
Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute any illegal act or
omission of any public official is not an exclusive authority but a
shared or concurrent authority in respect of the offense charged.
By stating therefore that the Ombudsman recommends the
action to be taken against an erring officer or employee, the
provisions in the Constitution and in RA 6770 intended that the
implementation of the order be coursed through the proper officer,
which in this case would be the head of the BID. (ito lang talaga
sinabi ng SC about enchroachment walang ibang explaination).
8)) BAGONG KAPISANAN SA PUNTA TENEMENT, INC.,
represented by ENRICO V. ESPANO vs. AZER E. DOLOT,
LUDIVINA F. MANLANGIT, RODRIGO T. JACLA, PEDRO B.
ESCOBER, ;VENCESLAO C. ASIS, EDUARDO E. ENRADO,
SILVERIO S. TANADA, PAZ ANA M. ARIOLA, ANTONIO
BENZON, JULIE GARCERA, IMELDA GIGANAN, CELESTE
TORRES, AND CARLOS DIUCO
G.R. No. 179054
September 5, 2012
MENDOZA, J;
HELD:
The petition is bereft of merit. Gross neglect of duty or
gross negligence refers to negligence characterized by the
want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a
situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but
willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to
EN BANC
G.R. No. 200242
ARTICLE VI
RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST
BY ARROGATING UNTO HIMSELF, AND TO A
COMMITTEE HE CREATED, THE AUTHORITY
AND JURISDICTION TO IMPROPERLY
INVESTIGATE A JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCULPATING
HIM. SUCH AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION IS
PROPERLY REPOSED BY THE CONSTITUTION
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES VIA
IMPEACHMENT.
ARTICLE VII
RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST
THROUGH HIS PARTIALITY IN GRANTING A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO) IN
FAVOR OF FORMER PRESIDENT GLORIA
MACAPAGAL-ARROYO AND HER HUSBAND
JOSE MIGUEL ARROYO IN ORDER TO GIVE
THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO ESCAPE
PROSECUTION AND TO FRUSTRATE THE ENDS
OF JUSTICE, AND IN DISTORTING THE
SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE
EFFECTIVITY OF THE TRO IN VIEW OF A
CLEAR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
CONDITIONS OF THE SUPREME COURTS OWN
TRO. ARTICLE VIII RESPONDENT BETRAYED
THE PUBLIC TRUST AND/OR COMMITTED
GRAFT AND CORRUPTION WHEN HE FAILED
AND REFUSEDTO ACCOUNT FOR THE
JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND (JDF) AND
SPECIAL ALLOWANCE FOR THE JUDICIARY
(SAJ) COLLECTIONS.1
On December 26, 2011, petitioner filed his Answer2
assailing the "blitzkrieg" fashion by which the
impeachment complaint was signed by the Members
of the HOR and immediately transmitted to the Senate.
Citing previous instances when President Aquino
openly expressed his rejection of petitioners
appointment as Chief Justice and publicly attacked this
Court under the leadership of petitioner for "derailing
his administrations mandate," petitioner concluded
that the move to impeach him was the handiwork of
President Aquinos party mates and supporters,
including"hidden forces" who will be benefited by his
ouster. As to the charges against him, petitioner denied
the same but admitted having once served the Offices
of the President and Vice-President during the term of
former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and
Mootness
In the meantime, the impeachment trial had been
concluded with the conviction of petitioner by more
than the required majority vote of the Senator-Judges.
Petitioner immediately accepted the verdict and
without any protest vacated his office. In fact, the
Judicial and Bar Council is already in the process of
screening applicants and nominees, and the President
of the Philippines is expected to appoint a new Chief
Justice within the prescribed 90-day period from
among those candidates shortlisted by the JBC.
Unarguably, the constitutional issue raised by
petitioner had been mooted by supervening events and
his own acts.1wphi1
An issue or a case becomes moot and academic when
it ceases to present a justiciable controversy so that a
determination thereof would be without practical use
and value.18 In such cases, there is no actual
substantial relief to which the petitioner would be
entitled to and which would be negated by the
dismissal of the petition.19
WHEREFORE, the present petition for certiorari and
prohibition with prayer for injunctive relief/s is
DISMISSED on the ground of MOOTNESS.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.