Uy vs Sandiganbayan

G.R. Nos. 105965-70 | 5 August 1999

Ponente: Justice Pardo
FACTS:
2 July 1991 George Uy, a Deputy Comptroller, together with 19 co accused, were charged with
six (6) informations for estafa through falsification of official documents and one (1) information for
violation of Section 3 (e), R.A. No. 3019
20 September 1991 Sandiganbayan calls for a reinvestigation
14 November 1991 Special Prosecutor (office under the Ombudsman) endorsed that the case of estafa
be replaced with informations for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, and such be charged against
Uy and 10 co accused
5 December 1991 Special Prosecutor Desierto reduced those to be charged for violation of R.A. No.
3019 to five, Uy included.
18 February 1992 from the five remaining accused, two were dropped (again), leaving Uy and two
others to face the six separate informations for violation of Section 3 (e), R.A. 3019
21 April 1992 Uy filed with the Sandiganbayan a Motion to Quash, Sandiganbayan denied Uys
petition.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the subject criminal cases or the person of the
petitioner;
2) Whether or not the respondents Ombudsman and Special Prosecutor have the authority to file the
questioned amended information;
3) Whether or not the act or omission charged constitutes an offense.
HELD:
1) No. The jurisdiction over the case at bar belongs to the regular courts, particularly the regional
trial courts, pursuant to sections 4 and 9 of the Sandiganbayan Law, as amended by R.A. No.
8249, respectively.
2) No. It is the prosecutor, not the Ombudsman, who has the authority to file the corresponding
information/s against petitioner in the regional trial court. The Ombudsman exercises
prosecutorial powers only in cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
3) Yes. The acts committed by the petitioner and his co accused do not relate to those acts and
omissions punishable under section 3 of R.A. No. 3019, rather, they belong to the serviceconnected offenses stated R.A. 7055.
22 February 2000
The Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the Special Prosecutor
files a motion for clarification regarding the ruling dated August 5, 1999.

The Offices of the Ombudsman and Special Prosecutor seem to suggest that they still
retain the power to re-file the information and prosecute the petitioner before the regional
trial court despite our finding that it is the regional trial court which has jurisdiction over the
case.
In their petition, they cited section 15 of R.A. 6770.
Their petition was denied.
20 March 2001
Before the Court is the Motion for Further Clarification filed by Ombudsman Aniano A.
Desierto of the Court's ruling in its decision dated August 9, 1999 and resolution dated
February 22, 2000 that the prosecutory power of the Ombudsman extends only to cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and that the Ombudsman has no authority to prosecute
cases falling within the jurisdiction of regular courts.
ISSUE:
W/N the scope of the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman is limited to the cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan.
HELD:
No. The legislature bestowed upon the Ombudsman extensive jurisdiction to facilitate him
in applying and practicing such power in his actions. The court maintained that it would be
dissonant to the intention of the legislature if they were to limit the power of the Ombudman
to the cases under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
"A perusal of the law originally creating the Office of the Ombudsman then (to be known as the
Tanodbayan), and the amendatory laws issued subsequent thereto will show that, at its
inception, the Office of the Ombudsman was already vested with the power to investigate
and prosecute civil and criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan and even the regular
courts.