Orap vs. Sandiganbayan GR.

L50508-11, October 11, 1985 FACTS: Tanodbayan Special Prosecutor Rodolfo Aquino filed 3 information before the Sand iganbayan, charging Vicente Orap (Presiding Judge of Municipal Court of Mangatar em, Pangasinan) for violation of Sec 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Pra ctices Act). Hon. Juan A. Sison, then Chief Special Prosecutor of the Tanodbaya n approved such information, docketed in three criminal cases. In one of the cr iminal cases, Melanio Fernandez, Orap s clerk of court, was likewise charged with said violation. In April 1979, 4th information was filed against Orap also for the same violation. The accused on different occasions unlawfully and felonious ly received and took various sums of money from several persons in connection wi th the criminal case entitled People vs Pepito F. Iglesias , for reckless imprudenc e resulting in multiple homicide, serious physical injuries and damage to proper ty. Orap filed a motion to quash before his schedule arraignment on the ground that the officer who signed had no authority to do so and that Sandiganbayan did not acquire jurisdiction over the offenses charged. Sandiganbayan denied Orap s motion after due hearing. He then moved for reconsideration but relief sought w as denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari and prohibition with Supreme Cou rt. Petitioner invoked Sec 9 in relation to Sec 10 of PD 1607 Tanodbayan Decree Sec 9 (a) "Administrative agency" means any department or other governmental uni t including any government-owned or controlled corporation, any official, or any employee acting or purporting to act by reason of connection with the governmen t but it does not include (1) any court or judge, or appurtenant judicial staff; (2) the members, committees or staffs of the National Assembly except members t hereof performing executive functions; (3) the President or his personal staff; and (4) the members of the Constitutional Commissions and their personal staffs. Sec 10 (A) He may investigate, on complaint by any person or on his own motion o r initiative, any administrative act whether amounting to any criminal offense o r not of any administrative agency including any government-owned or controlled corporation. ISSUES: 1. WON Tanodbayan is vested with authority in conducting preliminary investigat ion on complaints charging a municipal judge and his clerk of court with violati on under RA 3019. 2. WON they can proceed to file corresponding information before the Sandiganba yan and prosecute the same. HELD: The Tanodbayan functions not only as Ombudman but as Prosecutor as well. Throug h the Chief Special Prosecutor and the Special Prosecutors, Tanodbayan was confe rred with exclusive authority to conduct preliminary investigation of all cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan such as to file information, direct and control the prosecution of said cases as provided under Sec 17 and 19 of the Tanodbayan Decree. SEC. fice hief cial 17. Office of the Chief Special Prosecutor. There is hereby created in the Of of the Tanodbayan an Office of the Chief Special Prosecutor composed of a C Special Prosecutor, an Assistant Chief Special Prosecutor, and nine (9) Spe Prosecutors, who shall have the same qualifications as provincial and city

fiscals and L who shall be appointed by the President; ... SEC. 19. If the Tanodbayan has reason to believe that any public official employe e, or other person has acted in a manner warranting criminal or disciplinary act ion or proceedings, he shall cause him to be investigated by the Office of the C hief Special Prosecutor who shall file and prosecute the corresponding criminal or administrative case before the Sandiganbayan or the proper court or before th e proper administrative agency. In case of failure of justice, the Tanodbayan sh all make the appropriate recommendations to the administrative agency concerned. As Ombudsman, the investigatory powers are limited to complaints initiated again st officers and personnel of administrative agencies. Insofar as administrative complaints are concerned, the courts, judges and their judicial staff are outsi de the Tanodbayan s investigatory power because under Article 10 Sec 6 of the Cons titution, it is the Supreme Court that exercises administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel . However, as Prosecutor, the authority of the Tan odbayan is primary and without exceptions as defined in Sec 17 and 19 of the Tan odbayan Decree. Hence, Sandiganbayan validly acquired jurisdiction over the inf ormation charged against the petitioner with regard to the violation of Anti-Gra ft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Special Prosecutor may prosecute before the S andiganbayan judges accused of graft and corruption even if they come under the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court. If judges, and other court personnel are outside the investigatory power of the T anodbayan, then no judge or court employee could ever be brought to justice for crimes and offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, for lack of proper officer or entity authorized to conduct the preliminary investigation on complaints of s uch nature against them. This absurd situation the law could never have intended , considering that the Office of the Tanodbayan was purposely created to "give e ffect to the constitutional right of the people to petition the government for r edress of grievances and to promote higher standards of integrity and efficiency in the government service . Furthermore, the information filed complied with the substantial and formal requ irements and carried certification of the investigating prosecutor as to existen ce of a prima facie case. They likewise bear approval of the Chief Special Pros ecutor as required in the Tanodbayan Decree.