DIGESTED CASES IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1| ATTY.

ANTONIO EDUARDO NACHURA | 1B, 1H, 1N 2018-2019

b. Perez v. Sandiganbayan
(G.R. No. 166062, September 26,2006)
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

FACTS:

A petition for Certiorari was filed questioning the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan. This case
stemmed from a resolution dated 24 April 2001 when the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for
Luzon resolved to file charges of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 against
petitioners San Manuel, Pangasinan Mayor Salvador M. Perez and Municipal Treasurer Juanita
Apostol. The Information mentioned that the above-named accused conspired and confederated
with one another in committing the crime charged herein in relation to taking advantage of their
official functions through purchasing one (1) computer unit costing P120,000.00 acquisition by
personal canvass which is in violation of Sections 362 and 367 of R.A. 7160, thereby causing injury
to the Municipality of San Miguel,Pangasinan.

However, on 16 January 2002, prior to the scheduled arraignment, petitioners filed with the
Sandiganbayan a Motion for Leave of Court to File Motion for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation
alleging the discovery of new evidence which will change the outcome of the case if presented and
appreciated. It is stated herein that there is allegedly newly discovered evidence is included in the
reassessment by the auditors of the Commission on Audit (COA) that, though the prices between
the subject computer and that canvassed by the COA are different, such difference is “not really
that material.”

Meanwhile, it was stated herein that the Information must be amended to reflect the manner of the
commission of the offense. The issue of overpricing must be referred to the appropriate office for
further fact-finding and probable administrative investigation for violation of COA rules and RA
7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Office of the Special Prosecutor has the power to file informations without
delegation from the Ombudsman.

HELD:

No. The Ombudsman ordered in his Marginal note to “study whether the accused, assuming
arguendo that there was no overprice, gave unwarranted benefits, advantage of preference to
the seller of the subject computer” and “submit your recommendation the soonest”. However, it
is imperative that the recommendation be submitted to someone who has the authority to
implement such recommendation by authorizing the filing of the proper information. Whereas
here, it is evident that the Deputy Ombudsman and not the Special Prosecutor has the power to
file information pursuant to Office Order No. 40-05.