Case name:
CASTRO VS. DELORIA
SHARON CASTRO, Petitioner,
vs.
HON. MERLIN DELORIA, as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Guimaras the COARegion
VI, represented by its Director and HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.
G.R. Number, Case date:
G.R. No. 163586 January 27, 2009
Ponente:
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
TING, CHICONAZARIO, NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Subject:
Consti
Topic:
Effects of a Declaration of Unconstitutionality and the Doctrine of Operative Fact
Rule of Law:
Doctrine:
Where a judicial interpretation declares a law unconstitutional or abandons a doctrinal
interpretation of such law, the Court, recognizing that acts may have been performed under the
impression of the constitutionality of the law or the validity of its interpretation, has consistently
held that such operative fact cannot be undone by the mere subsequent declaration of the nullity
of the law or its interpretation. Thus, the declaration can only have a prospective application.
But where no law is invalidated nor doctrine abandoned, a judicial interpretation of the law should
be deemed incorporated at the moment of its legislation. Thus, its retroactive effect.
Facts:
August 17, 1998- Sharon Castro, the Revenue Officer I of the BIR 1, was in the custody of public
funds in the amount of P556, 681.53.2 This amount was alleged to be feloniously embezzled by
Castro and was never returned despite notice and demands issued to her.
April 26, 2000- beginning of investigation and prosecution of the Ombudsman as claimed by the
petitioner
May 31, 2000- Castro was charged by the Ombudsman before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
Guimaras with Malversation3 of Public Funds.
February 16, 2001- The petitioner pleaded NOT GUILTY during arraignment. 4
1 Bureau of Internal Revenue (Buenavista, Guimaras)
2 This amount represents the value of her collections and other accountabilities.
3 Corrupt behavior in a position of trust, especially in public office.
4 This refers to the court appearance of a defendant formally charged with crime.
August 31, 2001- petitioner filed a Motion to Quash on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and lack
of authority of the Ombudsman to conduct the preliminary investigation. Citing Uy v.
Sandiganbayan, she argued as a public employee with salary grade 27, the case filed against her
was cognizable by the RTC and may be investigated and prosecuted only by the public
prosecutor and not by the Ombudsman5 whose prosecutorial power was limited to cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
September 7, 2001- RTC denied6 the Motion to Quash. In Uy, upon motion for clarification
filed by the Ombudsman, the Court set aside its August 9, 1999 Decision and issued a
March 20, 2001 Resolution expressly recognizing the prosecutorial and investigatory
authority of the Ombudsman in cases cognizable by the RTC. Aside from clarifications
jurisdiction and authority, RTC held that the motion was contrary to Sec. 1, Rule 117, for it was
filed after petitioner pleaded not guilty.
December 18, 2001 RTC denied Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.
July 22, 2003 - CA dismissed Castros petition for certiorari. 7 and motion for reconsideration
(March 26, 2004).
Issues and Holding:
W/N the Ombudsman, as of May 31, 2000, had the authority to file for Malversation of
Public Funds despite the SCs ruling in the First "Uy vs. Sandiganbayan which declared
that the prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman are limited to cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan.
Yes. Ombudsman has the authority because the March 20, 2001 Resolution in Uy, that the
Ombudsman has prosecutorial powers in cases cognizable by the RTC, extends even to criminal
information filed or pending at the time when its August 9, 1999 Decision was the operative ruling
on the issue.
Office of the Ombudsman v. Enoc
This was supported by Office of the Ombudsman v. Enoc where the accused Ruben Enoc, et al.
invoked the August 9, 1999 Decision of the Court in Uy in a motion to dismiss the 11 counts of
malversation filed by the Ombudsman. The RTC granted the motion but upon petition filed by the
Ombudsman. The SC reversed the RTC and held that the Ombudsman has powers to prosecute
not only graft cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but also those cognizable by the
regular courts.
The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary
and unqualified. It pertains to any act or omission of any public officer or employee when
such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. The law does
not make a distinction between cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and those
cognizable by regular courts. It has been held that the clause "any illegal act or omission
of any public official" is broad enough to embrace any crime committed by a public officer
or employee.
5 According to petitioner, Ombudsman only have prosecutorial power limited to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
6 The jurisdiction of the RTC over the case did not depend on the salary grade, but on the penalty imposable upon the petitioner for
the offense charged.
7 To be certified of to be informed of. A writ issued from superior court to one of inferior jurisdiction, commanding then latter to
certify and return to former.
Section 15 of RA 67708 gives the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan. The law defines such primary jurisdiction as authorizing the Ombudsman "to
take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of the government, the investigation of
such cases." The authority does not necessarily imply the exclusion from its jurisdiction of cases
by other courts.
Office of Ombudsman v. Hon. Breva
Similarly relevant is the case of Office of Ombudsman v. Hon. Breva,16 in which, citing the August
9, 1999 Decision in Uy, the RTC dismissed a criminal complaint that was filed before it by the
Ombudsman. The Court reversed the RTC, for, "given the Courts Uy ruling under its March 20,
2001 Resolution, the trial courts assailed Orders x x x are, in hindsight, without legal support and
must, therefore, be set aside."
W/N the Resolution issued by the Supreme Court dated March 20, 2001 in the Uy vs.
Sandiganbayan case can be made applicable to the Petitioner, without violating the
constitutional provision on expost facto laws9 and denial of the accused to due process.
Yes. The resolution is applicable in this case. A judicial interpretation of a statute, such as the
Ombudsman Act, constitutes part of that law as of the date of its original passage. Such
interpretation does not create a new law but construes a preexisting one it merely casts light
upon the contemporaneous legislative intent of that law.18 Hence, the March 20, 2001 Resolution
of the Court in Uy interpreting the Ombudsman Act is deemed part of the law as of the date of its
effectivity of the Ombudsman Act on December 7, 1989.(Please see Doctrine)
Ruling:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. No costs.
Separate Opinions:
All justices concur.
Other notes on Office of the Ombudsman v. Enoc
SC also held that the reference made by RA 6770 to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, particularly
in Section 15(1) giving the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan, and Section 11(4) granting the Special Prosecutor the power to conduct preliminary
investigation and prosecute criminal cases should not be construed as confining the scope of the
investigatory and prosecutory power of the Ombudsman to such cases.
Section 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. of RA 6770 The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the
following powers, functions and duties:
(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of
any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal,
unjust, improper or inefficient.t has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage,
from any investigatory agency of Government, the investigation of such cases
8 Title: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE FUNCTIONAL AND STRUCTURAL ORGANIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
9 After-the-fact. Law passed after the occurrence of a fact or commission of an act
which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of such fact or deed.
Section 11. Structural Organization. of RA 6770 The authority and responsibility for the exercise of
the mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman and for the discharge of its powers and functions shall be
vested in the Ombudsman, who shall have supervision and control of the said office. xxx
(4) The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall, under the supervision and control and upon the authority of
the Ombudsman, have the following powers:
(a) To conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan xxx
