CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS (2013 – 2014)
TRANQUIL SALVADOR
G.R. No. 163586
CASTRO vs. DALORIA
January 27, 2009
Austria-Martinez, J.
Petitioner:
Sharon Castro
Respondents:
RTC Judge Hon. Merlin Deloria, CA
CASE SUMMARY:
Sharon Castro was a BIR Officer in Guimaras who was charged with Malversation of
Public Funds, misappropriating worth P556,000. The Ombudsman was tasked to
prosecute her, but she questioned the authority of the Ombudsman, citing the original
decision of Uy vs. Sandiganbayan decided in 1999 which held that the Ombudsman had
no prosecutorial powers over cases cognizable by RTC.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman’s powers were plenary and unqualified,
covering all offending “public officers”, and that the later Resolution of the Uy case
prevailed, curing the restrictive defect in the Ombudsman’s powers.
FACTS:
Sharon Castro, a Revenue Officer of BIR Buenavista, Guimaras, was
charged before the Ombudsman with Malversation of Public Funds. She
was accused of misappropriating public funds worth P556,681.53
despite notice and demand upon her account for the funds.
Castro filed a Motion to Quash, stating that the Ombudsman lacked
jurisdiction. She said that the Information failed to allege her salary
grade—a material fact in the crime charged. Citing Uy vs.
Sandiganbayan, since she had a salary grade of 27, her case should be
within the jurisdiction of the RTC. She also added that the prosecutorial
powers of the Ombudsman are limited to the cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan.
Castelo Chan-Gonzaga Evardone Gacutan Gana Gutierrez Lopez Miclat Mercado Tan Torres Valdez Varela
ATTY.
RTC denied the Motion to Quash, recognizing the authority of the
Ombudsman in the case. RTC cited the Resolution of Uy vs.
Sandiganbayan in 2001 which reversed the original decision in Uy vs.
Sanidganbayan 1999, and expressly recognizing the prosecutorial and
investigatory authority of the Ombudsman in cases cognizable by the
RTC.
ISSUES:
1. W/N the Ombudsman had the authority to file a case against
petitioner, as of May 31, 2001, in the light of the FIRST
DECISION in the Uy vs. Sandiganbayan case (1999), which
limited the powers of the Ombudsman.
2. W/N the Resolution of the Uy vs. Sandiganbayan case (2001)
violates the constitutional provisions against ex-post facto laws
and the denial of due process.
HELD:
Ombudsman’s powers UPHELD.
RATIO:
The decision on Uy vs. Sandiganbayan in 1991 was that the
Ombudsman’s prosecutorial powers were limited to Sandiganbayan
cases, while the Resolution on the same case in 2001 expressly held
that the Ombudsman shall have power on all criminal cases involving
public officials.
Petitioner contends that the decision in 1991 should apply to her case,
instead of the 2001 Resolution, because the Ombudsman instituted the
action against her in April 26, 2000. Hence, the Information filed against
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS (2013 – 2014) ATTY. TRANQUIL SALVADOR

her was void because at that time, the Ombudsman had no authority
over her case.
The Court finds no merit in her petition.
1. The Ombudsman’s prosecutorial powers are PLENARY and
UNQUALIFIED.
Time and time again, the Court has held that the Ombudsman has
power to prosecute not only graft cases within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan but also cases within the jurisdiction of the regional trial
courts. The powers of the Ombudsman are plenary and unqualified.
(Office of the Ombudsman vs. Enoc)
it to reveal the true intent of the lawmakers. Therefore, the Resolution
of the Court in Uy interpreting the Ombudsman Act is part of the law
dated December 7, 1989. “Where no law is invalidated nor doctrine
abandoned, a judicial interpretation of the law should be deemed
incorporated at the moment of its legislation”. The Resolution in Uy set
aside an erroneous pubescent interpretation of the Ombudsman Act
manifested in Uy vs. Sandiganbayan (1999).
FINAL VERDICT:
Case DISMISSED for lack of merit.

The clause “any illegal act or omission of any public official” is broad
enough to embrace the any crime committed by a public officer or
employee is within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to prosecute.

Section 15 of RA 6770 gives the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction to

“take over, at any stage from any investigatory agency of the
government, the investigation of such cases” cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan.

Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman should not

be equated with the limited authority of the Special Prosecutor under
Section 11 of RA 6770. The Office of the Special Prosecutor is merely a
component of the Office of the Ombudsman and may only act under
the supervision and control and upon authority of the Ombudsman.

2. The Resolution of Uy vs. Sandiganbayan in 2001 is NOT ex-post

facto; it is meant to cure the defect in limiting the
Ombudsman’s powers.

Resolution 2001 is a judicial interpretation of the statute. As such, it

constitutes part of the original law which is the Ombudsman Act of
1989. Such interpretation does not create new law, but rather construes

Castelo Chan-Gonzaga Evardone Gacutan Gana Gutierrez Lopez Miclat Mercado Tan Torres Valdez Varela