[G.R. No. 159139. May 3, 2006]
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION OF THE
En Banc
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated May 3, 2006
G.R. No. 159139 (INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION OF THE
On March 28; 2006, this Court issued a Resolution directing the Office
of the Ombudsman (OMB), “under pain of contempt, to report on a regular basis -
once every three months -- the steps it has taken and the corresponding results
of those actions to ‘determine the criminal liability, if any, of the public
officials (and conspiring private individuals, if any,) involved in the subject
Resolution and Contract.’ Accordingly,
the OMB shall render its reports on or before June 30, 2006, and every three
months thereafter, on September 30, 2006, December 31, 2006, and so on, till the
matter is finally disposed of.”
On April 19, 2006, petitioners filed a Motion for Clarification, inquiring
about the following issues: (1) “how long [can] the Office of the Ombudsman x x x sit on this case without making
a determination on the criminal liability, if any, of the public officials
involved”; and (2) “whether the failure of the Ombudsman to make a determination
on the aforementioned Complaints, one (1) year and four (4) months after the
case was deemed submitted (with the filing of the Joint Comment of the Comelec Commissioners with the Office of the Ombudsman),
can be considered as acting promptly on a complaint, within the letter and spirit
of the Constitution.”
Petitioner-movants aver that the March
28, 2006 Resolution of this Court does not provide a closure as to when the OMB
should make a determination of criminal liability. They contend that apparently, the OMB can
even “sit on this case indefinitely,” because “their only obligation under the “Resolution
x x x is to submit a report
every three months.”
They, thus, seek an Order from the Court “directing the Office of
the Ombudsman to complete its determination of the criminal liability, if any,
of the public officials involved in Comelec
Resolution No. 6074 awarding the contract for Phase II of AES to Mega Pacific Consortium,
as well as the subject Contract between Comelec and Mega
Pacific eSolutions (MPEI), within a deadline x x x.”
The pertinent provision of the Constitution reads as follows:
"Sec. 12[, Article XI]. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors
of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner
against public officials or employees of the Government x x
x."
Accordingly, the OMB is duty-bound to resolve promptly all complaints, motions and
related matters before it. Promptly means “to act at once or without
delay.”[1] It may also mean “within a reasonable period
of time.” Thus, OMB certainly does not
have the luxury of sitting on cases for an indefinite period. Nor even this Court’s directive for it to
render every three months a report on steps it has undertaken relative to a
case authorizes it to simply do just that and nothing more.
The OMB is fully aware of its duty to dispose of cases within a definite
period. The time limits are spelled out
in its very own Rules of Procedure (Administrative Order No. 7) as follows:
“Sec. 4[, Rule II]. Procedure [in criminal cases]. - The preliminary
investigation of cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and Regional Trial Courts shall be conducted
in the manner prescribed in Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court x x x.
x x
x x x x x x x”
“Sec. 6[, Rule III. Procedure in Administrative Cases]. Rendition
of decision. - Not later than thirty (30) days after the termination of the
hearing, the investigating officer shall submit a resolution containing his
findings and recommendation for the approval of the Ombudsman. Once approved, the said resolution shall
constitute the decision in the case. x x x.”
The aforementioned Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court,
provides:
"Sec. 3. Procedure. -
The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in the following manner:
x x
x x
xx x x
x
"(b) Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint, the
investigating officer shall either dismiss it if he finds no ground to continue
with the investigation, or issue a subpoena to the respondent attaching to it a
copy of the complaint and its supporting affidavits and documents.
x x
x x x x x x x
"(c) Within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena with
the complaint and supporting affidavits and documents, the respondent shall
submit his counter-affidavit and that of his witnesses and other supporting
documents relied upon for his defense.
"(d) If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed,
does not submit counter-affidavits within the ten (10) day period, the
investigating officer shall resolve the complaint based on the evidence
presented by the complainant.
"(e) The investigating officer may set a hearing if there are
facts and issues to be clarified from a party or a witness. The parties can be present at the hearing but
without the right to examine or cross-examine. They may, however, submit to the investigating
officer questions which may be asked to the party or witness concerned.
"The hearing shall be held within ten (10) days from submission
of the counter-affidavits and other documents or from the expiration of the
period for their submission. It shall be
terminated within five (5) days.
"(f) Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the investigating
officer shall determine whether or not there is sufficient ground lo hold the
respondent for trial."
In brief, as regards the question in the present Motion for Clarification,
after the termination of the hearing of an administrative case, the OMB
investigating officers have 30 days within which to submit a resolution
containing their findings and recommendation for the approval of the
Ombudsman. In criminal complaints, on the other hand, they have 10 days after the investigation within which
to determine whether there is sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial.
In other words, the OMB has only 10 days
within which to determine whether there exists a prima facie case against the respondent
in a criminal complaint.
In the present case, according to petitioner-movants,
after the Comelec Commissioners’ Joint Comment was
filed with the OMB, one (1) year and four (4) months have lapsed since the case
was deemed submitted for resolution.
Under the Rules of Court as adopted bv the
OMB, this period is definitely beyond that prescribed for a determination of criminal
culpability, if any, in a given case.
Pertinently, for the disposition of cases by the courts, the Constitution
provides:
“Sec. 15[, Article VIII]. (1)
All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this
Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of
submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court,
twelve months for all collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower
courts.
(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution
upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the Rules
of Court or by the court itself.”
x x
x x x x x x x.
The Court's March 28, 2006 Resolution must perforce be read in conjunction with the Constitution, the law and the pertinent rules. Accordingly, the OMB should have resolved the subject Complaint within 10 days from investigation, at the very least, pursuant to its own Rules of Procedure and the Rules of Court; or within three months, at most, from the submission of the last required pleading. The submission by the Comelec commissioners of their Joint Comment should be deemed the last pleading required by the OMB. Its non-setting of a hearing could only mean that no facts or issues needed to be clarified. Hence, it must be deemed to have dispensed with the hearing. Its remaining duty is to resolve the case based on the evidence at hand.
If the OMB has indeed sat on the case for more than one year and
four months, then it has surely incurred undue delay in the resolution of the case
and failed to abide by its constitutional mandate “to act promptly” on cases
filed before it. The OMB certainly
cannot promulgate rules that it can ignore at its pleasure, to the prejudice of
the parties,
In fine, the Court's disposition in its March 28, 2006 Resolution
directs the OMB to make, within the period provided, a final finding on whether
a prima facie case exists against the respondents in the investigation it
conducted, pursuant to this Court's directive in its January 13, 2004 Decision
in the instant case and in related Complaints filed before it. It has
to report, on pain of contempt, its final determination to this Court on or
before June 30, 2006.
If it finds no probable cause to hold any of the respondents for trial,
then its duty to render a report on this case ceases. Otherwise, it shall continue to render a report
every three months on the progress of the prosecution (trial) stage until the final
disposition o the case by the proper courts.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Clarification of petitioners is NOTED.
The disposition of the Court in its March 28, 2006 Resolution is
hereby CLARIFIED, consistent with the above disquisition, as follows:
The Office of the Ombudsman shall, under pain of contempt, report to this Court
by June 30, 2006, its final determination of whether a probable cause exists
against any of the public officials (and conspiring private individuals, if
any) involved in the subject Resolution and Contract. If it finds that probable cause exists, it shall
continue to render its reports every three months thereafter, until the matter
is finally disposed of by the proper courts.
Puno, J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court