LATAZIN, ET. AL.

V DESIERTO

FACTS
Petitioners: Carmelo F. Lazatin, Marino A. Morales, Teodoro L. David And Angelito A. Pelayo
Respondents: Hon. Aniano A. Desierto As Ombudsman, And Sandiganbayan, Third Division
The case resolves the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
- (July 22, 1998) Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau under the Office of the Ombudsman
filed (1) a complaint-affidavit against petitioners Illegal Use of Public Funds; and (2)
violation of Section 3, paragraphs (a) and (e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, as amended
o For the irregularities in then Congressman Carmelo Lazatin’s use of his Countrywide
Development Fund (CDF) in 1996
 Converted into cash 18 checks amounting to ₱4,868,277.08 by being
assuming the roles of both proponent and implemented of his projects
 Helped by fellow petitioners -- Marino A. Morales, Angelito A. Pelayo and
Teodoro L. David

- May 29, 2000: After the preliminary investigation by the Evaluation and Preliminary
Investigation Bureau (EPIB), they issued a resolution that recommended the filing of the
following against petitioners:
o fourteen (14) counts each of Malversation of Public Funds
o violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019
- Resolution was approved by the Ombudsman, thus resulting to criminal cases (nos. 26087
to 26114) being filed against them in the Sandiganbayan
- Petitioners Lazatin, et. al filed Motions for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation
o Granted by Sandiganbayan (Third Division)
 Further ordered the Ombudsman to re-evaluate the cases
o (September 18, 2000): Office of Special Prosecutor (OSP) submitted a resolution to
the Ombudsman, recommending the dismissal of cases against petitioners due to
lack or insufficiency of evidence
 The Office of the Legal Affairs (OLA) to review this resolution was ordered
by the Ombudsman to review this
 Oct. 24, 2000 – recommended: (1) disapproval of this resolution;
(2) directed OSP to proceed with the trial
o October 27, 2000: memorandum was adopted by
Ombudsman
 ordered aggressive prosecution of the subject cases
 Cases returned to Sandiganbayan to continue
criminal proceedings
o In response, the petitioners questioned the authority of the Ombudsman to overturn
the decision of the OSP
 Cited Section 13, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution where its power is limited
to investigation and recommendation of which cases to file, not to prosecute
  Power to prosecute belongs to OSP (formerly, Tanodbayan) – a separate and
distinct entity
 Hence, the Ombudsman doesn’t have power over it
 Conclusion: R.A. 6670 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) - making OSP an
organic component of the Ombudsman - is unconstitutional

ISSUES
- Whether or not the constitutionality of R.A. 6770 should be revisited, and the doctrine of
stare decisis therefore be set aside

DECISION
Petition is dismissed for lack of merit.

 The constitutionality of R.A. 6670 has already been upheld in Acop v. Office of the
Ombudsman (1995)
 Camanag v Guerrero, and Office of the Ombudsman v Valera – based its ratio Decidendi on
Acop v. Office of the Ombudsman, declaring OSP as a mere component of the Office of the
Ombudsman
 Perez v Sandiganbayan - authority of the Ombudsman to prosecute based on R.A. 6770 was
authorized by the Constitution, and the Congress was within its powers to prescribe the
Ombudsman with such authority
The doctrine of stare decisis cannot be set aside.
Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled.
Definition:

 “Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of
the legal system of the Philippines.” (Art. 8, Civil Code)
Fermin v People

 It enjoins adherence to judicial precedents.

 It requires courts in a country to follow the rule established in a decision of the
Supreme Court thereof.
 Basis: “once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and
closed to further argument”
Why is it important?
1. because it’s “grounded on the necessity for securing certainty and stability of judicial decisions”
(Chinese Young Men's Christian Association of the Philippine Islands v. Remington Steel Corporation)
2. Follows the first principle of justice: “absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like
cases ought to be decided alike” – why the courts have seen it as a necessary judicial practice
3. Rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue
Given its value in our judicial system, abandonment should only be due to strong and compelling
reasons. Otherwise, the court risks the virtue of predictability being affected as well as losing the
public’s confidence that solemn pronouncements are stable. Petitioners failed to demonstrate such
reasons.