2005 Bar: Resolve with reasons the motion of respondent AG. (5%)

2005 Bar: Regional Director AG of the Department of Public Works and Highways was charged with violation of Setion 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 in the Office of the Ombudsman. An administrative charge for gross misconduct arising from the transaction subject matter of said criminal case was filed against him in the same office. The Ombudsman assigned a team composed of investigators from the Office of the Special Prosecutor and from the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the military to conduct a joint investigation of the criminal case and the administrative case. The team of investigators recommended to the Ombudsman that AG be preventively suspended for a period not exceeding six (6) months on its finding that the evidence of guilt is strong. The Ombudsman issued the said order as recommended by the investigators.

AG moved to reconsider the order on the following grounds: a. The Office of the Special Prosecutor had exclusive authority to conduct a preliminary investigation of the criminal case; b. The order for his preventive suspension was premature because he had yet to file his answer to the administrative complaint and submit countervailing evidence; and c. He was a career executive service officer and under Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Law), his preventive suspension shall be for a maximum period of three months.

Resolve with reasons the motion of respondent AG. (5%) The Motion for Reconsideration must be DENIED for the following reasons:

a. OSP under OMB's supervision. AG‘s contention that the Office of the Special Prosecutor had exclusive authority to conduct a preliminary investigation of the criminal case should be rejected considering that the investigatory powers of the Office of Special Prosecutor is under the supervision of the Office of Ombudsman, which exercises the investigatory and prosecutor powers granted by the Constitution (Office of the Ombudsman vs. Enoc). This is but in accordance with Section 31 of RA 6770 which provides that the Ombudsman may utilize the personnel of his office and/or designate or deputize any fiscal state prosecutor or lawyer in the government service to act as special investigator or prosecutors to assist in the investigation and prosecution of certain cases. Those designated or deputized to assist him herein provided shall be under his supervision and control.
b. Suspension may precede answer. The order of preventive suspension need not wait for the answer to the administrative complaint and the submission of counterveiling evidence (Lastimosa vs. Vasquez).
c. OMB Act being a special law. His preventive suspension as a career executive officer under the Civil Service Law may only be for a maximum period of three months (Sec. 42, PD 807). The period of suspension under the Anti-Graft Law is the same pursuant to the equal protection clause. However, under Section 24 of the Ombudsman Act, the Ombudsman is expressly authorized to issue an order of preventive suspension of not more than six (6) months without pay (Garcia vs. Mojica; Layno vs. Sandiganbayan).