Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    Lastimosa Vs Vasquez

    Uploaded by

    Elyn Apiado

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lastimosa Vs Vasquez

    Uploaded by

    Elyn Apiado
    15 views2 pages

    Original Title

    Lastimosa vs Vasquez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    15 views2 pages

    Lastimosa Vs Vasquez

    Uploaded by

    Elyn Apiado

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    DAYAG, AURELIO C.

    JR
    JD2

    HON. SIMEON A.
    DATUMANONG

    HON. SIMEON A.
    DATUMANONG
    HON. SIMEON A.
    DATUMANONG
    LASTIMOSA VS VASQUEZ
    STATEMENT OF THE FACTS:
    On February 18, 1993 Jessica Villacarlos Dayon, public health nurse of Santa Fe, Cebu, filed a
    criminal complaint for frustrated rape and an administrative complaint for immoral acts, abuse of
    authority and grave misconduct against the Municipal Mayor of Santa Fe, Rogelio Ilustrisimo.
    Initially, the deputy ombudsman found no prima facie evidence.

    After review, Omb. Vasquez reversed and directed that the mayor be charged with a criminal
    case in the RTC. The case was referred to provincial prosecutor Lastimosa. She conducted her
    own preliminary investigation and found that only acts of lasciviousness had been committed.
    She filed a case for acts of lasciviousness with the MCTC. As no case for attempted rape had
    been filed by the Prosecutor’s Office, Deputy Ombudsman Mojica ordered on July 27, 1994
    Provincial Prosecutor Kintanar and petitioner Lastimosa to show cause why they should not be
    punished for contempt for “refusing and failing to obey the lawful directives” of the Office of the
    Ombudsman.

    Petitioner contends, the Office of the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the case against the
    mayor because the crime involved (rape) was not committed in relation to a public office. For
    this reason, it is argued that the Office of the Ombudsman has no authority to place her and
    Provincial Prosecutor Kintanar under preventive suspension for refusing to follow his orders and
    to cite them for indirect contempt for such refusal.

    STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

    This case requires us to determine the extent to which the Ombudsman may call upon
    government prosecutors for assistance in the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases
    cognizable by his office and the conditions under which he may do so.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman has the power to call on the Provincial Prosecutor
    to assist in the prosecution of the case for attempted rape against Mayor Ilustrisimo.

    RULING:
    DAYAG, AURELIO C. JR
    JD2

    Yes. The office of the Ombudsman has the power to “investigate and prosecute on its own or on
    complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or
    agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.

    “This power has been held to include the investigation and prosecution of any crime committed
    by a public official regardless of whether the acts or omissions complained of are related to, or
    connected with, or arise from, the performance of his official duty.

    It does not matter that the office of the Provincial Prosecutor had already conducted the
    preliminary investigation and all that remained to be one was for the Office of the Provincial
    Prosecutor to file the corresponding case in court. Even if the preliminary investigation had been
    given over to the Provincial Prosecutor to conduct, his determination of the nature of the offense
    to be charged would still be subject to the approval of the Office of the Ombudsman.

    PRINCIPLES/DOCTRINES:
    Designation of Investigators and Prosecutors. — The Ombudsman may utilize the personnel of
    his office and/or designate of deputize any fiscal, state prosecutor or lawyer in the government
    service to act as special investigator or prosecutor to assist in the investigation and prosecution of
    certain cases. Those designated or deputized to assist him as herein provided shall be under his
    supervision and control.

    You might also like