PEREZ v SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. No. 166062 | September 26, 2006 | Chico-Nazario | Office of the Special Prosecutor
PETITIONER: Salvador Perez and Juanita Apostol
RESPONDENTS: Hon. Sandiganbayan (2nd Div), and the People of the Philippines, represented by Office
of the Special Prosecutor
SUMMARY: Salvador and Juanita are Mayor and Treasurer of San Manuel, Pangasinan, respectively. They
willfully, unlawfully, and criminally caused the purchase of 1 computer unit costing P120,000
acquisition by personal canvass, violating Sec. 362 and 367 of the LGC. No public bidding occurred and
no Committee of Awards was constituted to approve the procurement Salvador and Juanita gave Mobil
Link Enterprises/Starlet Sales Center undue advantage or preference through manifest partiality,
showing evident bad faith and gross, inexcusable negligence, but this was not included in the original
information, so it was recommended by the Special Prosecutor that the information be amended to show
the manner of the commission of the offense, based on the Ombudsmans margin notes in the original
information. The amended information was admitted. The petitioners challenge this, saying that the
Sandiganbayan committed GAD in accepting the amended information, which had no approval from the
Ombudsman, amounting to denial of due process. The SC granted the petition.
DOCTRINE: The Ombudsman may delegate powers to the Office of the Special Prosecutor, but such
delegation must be shown by clear intent. The Ombudsmans power of control would be seriously
hampered if the former were authorized to file informations in the first instance. This is because while
the Ombudsman has full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in the
Sandiganbayan. Once the case has been filed with said court, it is the Sandiganbayan, and no longer the
Ombudsman, which has full control of the case so much so that the informations may not be dismissed,
without the approval of the said court.
FACTS:
1. We took up this case before. That is a fact.
ISSUES: Whether or not the Office of the Special
Prosecutor has the power to file informations
without delegation from the Ombudsman.
HELD/RATIO: NO. The Ombudsmans margin
notes order was to "study whether the accused,
assuming arguendo that there was no overprice,
gave unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference to the seller of the subject computer
and submit your recommendation soonest.
It is clear that the recommendation must
be submitted to one who has authority to
implement such recommendation. The
Ombudsman has the power to file informations,
as well as the power to delegate his powers.
Office Order No. 40-05 delegates the disposition
of administrative and criminal cases (filing
informations) to the Deputy Ombudsman, but
NOT the Special Prosecutor (which is included in
the Office of the Ombudsman). All that is
delegated to the Special Prosecutor is the
discretional authority to review and modify the
D2018 | S. CRISOSTOMO | CONSTI 1

Deputy Ombudsman-authorized information, but

without departing from the basic resolution.
Deputy Ombudsman and Special
Prosecutor are given the same rank and salary
(RA 6770), but they do NOT have the same
functions.
Since there is no express delegation, the
Court looked into whether or not there was an
implied delegation. RA 6770 provides that the
powers of the OSP include: conducting
preliminary investigations and prosecute
criminal cases w/in jurisdiction of
Sandiganbayan, enter into plea-bargaining
agreements, and perform other duties assigned
by Ombudsman. Respondents argue the doctrine
of Qualified Political Agency, saying that since
the amended information has not been
disapproved by the Ombudsman, it has his tacit
approval. The SC said no. This doctrine does not
apply to the Office of the Ombudsman, which is
an apolitical agency.
Granted, this is a procedural defect and
the OSPs Memorandum (amended info) may
later be approved by the Ombudsman.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for
Certiorari is GRANTED.