Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

“Judges and Disciplinary Cases”

14. Orap vs Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. L-50508-11, October 11, 1985

Facts:

Petitioner, a presiding judge of the Municipal Court of Mangatarem, Pangasinan,


filed a motion to quash the “informations” on the ground that the TanodBayan who signed
the same had no authority to do so and that, the Sandiganbayan did not acquire
jurisdiction over the offenses charged. After due hearing, the respondent court denied
petitioner's motion to quash. Petitioner verbally moved for the reconsideration of the order
but the relief sought was denied.

Issue:

Whether or not Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case, considering the
petitioner’s contention that the Tanodbayan has no power to conduct preliminary
investigations, file informations and prosecute criminal cases against judges and their
appurtenant judicial staff.

Ruling:

Yes, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case.

PD No. 1607 (Tanodbayan decree), provides that “the Tanodbayan functions not
only as an ombudsman, but as prosecutor as well.”

In this case, the Tanodbayan as ombudsman, his investigatory powers are limited
to complaints initiated against officers and personnel of administrative agencies, as
defined in Section 9(a) of the law. Insofar as administrative complaints are concerned,
the courts, judges and their appurtenant judicial staff are outside the Tanodbayan's
investigatory power. However, a Tanodbayan may also act as prosecutor in criminal
cases. As petitioner is charged here with criminal cases (violations of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act), which are within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as defined
under Section 4 of P.D. 1606, the said court validly acquired jurisdiction over the
informations in question.

Note: procedural due process requirements in judicial, criminal, and civil proceedings:

1. An impartial and disinterested court;


2. Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the person of the party or property which is the
subject matter of the proceeding;
3. Notice and opportunity to be heard given to the parties to adduce evidence in their behalf.

Вам также может понравиться