Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. The Ombudsman railroaded the inclusion of Sia and de Leon as party-respondents in the complaint;
2. The Ombudsman did not refer the complaint to the Department of Justice, considering that the offense of
Concubinage is not committed in relation to his office as Chief of Hospital xxx
(Note: There are three other issues raised but they’re irrelevant to our topic. Also, of the two issues raised here,
the second issue is the one directly connected to Sec 2 of Rule 112. Nasa previous topics ‘yung first issue so baka
lang matanong ni ma’am)
ISSUE/S
I. Whether or not the Ombudsman's automatic inclusion, over Alfredo’s vehement objections of Sia and de
Leon as party-respondents, violates Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 5, Rule 110 of the
Rules of Court – NO
II. Whether or not the Ombudsman should have referred Rosa's complaint to the Department of Justice (DOJ),
since, as the petitioner argued, the crime of Concubinage is not committed in relation to his being a public
officer - NO
RATIO
ON THE FIRST ISSUE
The Ombudsman’s amendment of the complaint does not violate Art 344 of the RPC and Sec 5 Rule 110 of the
RoC.
Under Section 4(d) of Rule II the Rules of Procedure of the Ombudsman, if respondent desires any matter in the
complainant's affidavit to be clarified, the particularization thereof may be done at the time of the clarificatory
questioning in the manner provided in paragraph (f) of this section. Said paragraph f, on the other hand,
provides that if, after the filing of the requisite affidavits and their supporting evidences, there are facts
material to the case which the investigating officer may need to be clarified on, he may conduct a clarificatory
hearing during which the parties shall be afforded the opportunity to be present but without the right to
examine or cross-examine the witness being questioned.
The Ombudsman merely facilitated the amendment of the complaint to cure the defect pointed out by Alfredo.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Ombudsman that it would be superfluous to dismiss the complaint when
amendment thereof is allowed by its Rules of Procedure and the Rules of Court.
[T]he Constitution, Section 15 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 and Section 4 of the Sandiganbayan Law, as
amended, do not give to the Ombudsman exclusive jurisdiction to investigate offenses committed by public
officers or employees. The authority of the Ombudsman to investigate offenses involving public officers or
employees is concurrent with other government investigating agencies such as provincial, city and state
prosecutors. However, the Ombudsman, in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan, may take over, at any stage, from any investigating agency of the government, the
investigation of such cases.
In Honasan II, although Senator Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan was a public officer who was charged with coup
d'etat for the occupation of Oakwood on 27 July 2003, the preliminary investigation therefor was conducted by
the DOJ. Honasan questioned the jurisdiction of the DOJ to do so, proferring that it was the Ombudsman which
had jurisdiction since the imputed acts were committed in relation to his public office. The Supreme Court
clarified that the DOJ and the Ombudsman have concurrent jurisdiction to investigate offenses involving public
officers or employees. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court pointed out that the Ombudsman, in the exercise of its
primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, may take over, at any stage, from any
investigating agency of the government, the investigation of such cases
Plainly, applying that ruling in this case, the Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction, albeit concurrent with the
DOJ, over Rosa's complaint, and after choosing to exercise such jurisdiction, need not defer to the dictates of a
respondent in a complaint, such as Alfredo. In other words, the Ombudsman may exercise jurisdiction to the
exclusion of the DOJ.
RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The Resolutions of the Ombudsman dated 17 April 2009 and 11 October
2010 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.
GUINTO