Archive for April, 2011


LEGAL NOTE 0058: OMBUDSMAN GUTIERREZ RESIGNS.

I am not protecting Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’

Gutierrez quits; ‘On with antigraft drive’—Aquino

By Leila B. Salaverria, Philip Tubeza
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:41:00 04/30/2011

Filed Under: Good news, Judiciary (system of justice), Impeachment, Graft & Corruption, Benigno Aquino III

MANILA,Philippines—After months of tough talk, Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez quit her post on Friday, saying the time spent removing her from office would be better used to solve the country’s problems.

Up to the end, Gutierrez continued to deny that she had been protecting former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo—one of the persistent allegations leveled at her by her critics.

President Benigno Aquino III, who had made no secret of his conviction that Gutierrez should go, received her in Malacañang when she came Friday morning to submit her resignation letter.

“I repeated to her that this fight was not personal. I have a commitment to the public to uphold the Constitution to which I subscribed,” the President said in a press conference later in the day.

He said he thanked Gutierrez for her decision and also acceded to her request that she retain her security detail.

A top member of the once-ruling Lakas-Kampi, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the issue, said Gutierrez quit her post because of mental anguish and lack of support from Arroyo.

Her resignation takes effect on May 6, three days shy of the opening of Congress and the start of her impeachment trial at the Senate.

Cordial meeting

Gutierrez’s office phoned the President’s private secretary at around 7 on Thursday night to seek an appointment and was told he would be free at 10 a.m. Friday., a source privy to the matter said.

The Ombudsman arrived in Malacañang at 10:20 a.m. and proceeded to Mr. Aquino’s office at the Guest House.

“It was a very cordial meeting. As the President said, this wasn’t a personal fight,” the source said, adding that Gutierrez left at around 10:55 a.m.

The Inquirer first got confirmation on Gutierrez’s resignation from Interior Secretary Jesse Robredo at noon Friday.

Robredo said in a text message that Gutierrez “personally submitted her resignation, which the President accepted.”

“She’s on her way now to formally inform her staff and then announce it to the media. Thereafter, the President will make a statement,” Robredo said.

At his press conference, Mr. Aquino said Gutierrez “personally submitted to me her resignation as our country’s Ombudsman, effective May 6.”

“Her action has spared the country a long and divisive impeachment process that would have distracted our lawmakers from dealing with the many problems that we face today. It also paves the way for the appointment of a new Ombudsman,” he said.

The President said he was happy with Gutierrez’s “unexpected” resignation as it removed one stumbling block in his administration’s campaign to go after grafters, particularly persons “of higher priority.”

“How can one not be happy when she did that? How can one not be glad now that there is one less worry to spend time on?” he said.

He added that Congress would now also have more time to tackle the administration’s priority bills.

Loyalty to the people

In her own press conference where she read a prepared statement, Gutierrez said “it is my fervent hope that the misconception bred that having been appointed to public office by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, I owed my allegiance to her and am accountable only to her, and not to the Filipino people and the Constitution, be discarded and laid to rest.”

“While I acknowledge with deep gratitude the opportunity given me by … Arroyo, my undivided loyalty always was, is and will forever remain, to the Constitution and the Filipino people,” she said.

She added that while the Office of the Ombudsman had been accused of delay and inaction, it was only because it chose to accord due process to public officials facing complaints.

Gutierrez did not take questions from reporters. No one from the Office of the Ombudsman joined her at the table during her press conference, but employees packed the room where it was held and clapped loudly when she came in.

According to Gutierrez, leaving before the end of her term in 2012 is an “abhorrent” thought.

She said she had not succumbed to pressure, been cowed into submission, or been influenced by anything other than truth and justice.

“I wanted to face my accusers whatever the personal agony it would have involved. But the interests of my family, my office and, more importantly, the nation, must always come before any personal considerations,” she said.

Last thing nation needs

Gutierrez said the country needed a full-time Ombudsman and a full-time Congress.

As it is, she said, the impeachment proceedings had also consumed the legislative branches and even the President.

“At a time when the present administration is in its infancy and beset with more urgent problems, the last thing that the nation needs is for the House and the Senate to be embroiled in a long-drawn-out impeachment proceeding against a single public official,” she said.

“The President needs an Ombudsman in whom he has complete trust and confidence. To carry on my battle to cleanse my name before the Senate would detract from the time which could otherwise be devoted to legislative work which would address the needs of millions of Filipino people.”

Gutierrez further said that in resigning, she hoped that the country would focus on solving problems rather than spend resources to remove her from office.

“I shall leave this office with regret at not completing my term, but with gratitude for the privilege of serving as Ombudsman for the past five years,” she said.

She thanked her colleagues who, she said, had worked hard to build up the institution, and added: “And to my detractors, I bear them no rancor because I have learned to make myself believe that we all love our country and our people no matter how our judgments might differ.”

Aquino’s kind words

Gutierrez thanked the President “for graciously accommodating me on very short notice, and for all the kind words he said to me.”

She said she would turn over the day-to-day affairs of the Office of the Ombudsman to Overall Deputy Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro.

After she left, Gutierrez’s spokesperson Tomas Syquia said reports that former employees of the Office of the Ombudsman would testify at her impeachment trial had nothing to do with her decision to quit.

Syquia said Gutierrez had been mulling over the idea of resigning as early as two weeks ago, and reflected on the matter during the Holy Week.

“It was not a sudden decision,” he told reporters.

Syquia said Gutierrez did not consult with Arroyo over her decision. Instead, she talked with her family, key officials of the Office of the Ombudsman, her legal team and her trusted advisers.

She received no pressure from anyone to resign, he said.

He also said that if suits would be filed against Gutierrez, she would face these as a private citizen.

Search for replacement

The President thanked the House of Representatives, which had voted to impeach Gutierrez, and urged the Judicial and Bar Council “to begin the search for a new Ombudsman.”

“With the support of the public, we can now proceed more decisively in making government officials more accountable to their bosses: the Filipino people,” he said.

Mr. Aquino said that he was still consulting his legal advisers as to whether the new Ombudsman should serve out the remainder of Gutierrez’s term or be given a full term in office.

Asked if Gutierrez was now off the hook, Mr. Aquino said: “I’m not saying Merceditas is the least priority, but there are people who have higher priority.

“Unfortunately, one of the problems of our country is that it takes six years to adjudicate a case. I have five years and two months to go … I cannot [charge] everybody … There has to be a prioritization. I want to be realistic.”

On Gutierrez’s security detail, Mr. Aquino said: “She asked about her security and I said that was not a problem. The people protecting her will continue doing it …

“I think that as the Ombudsman, you go after many powerful people. Maybe she really went after some who want to take revenge. That would not be right.”

Arroyo spokesperson Elena Bautista-Horn said in a text message to reporters that she respected Gutierrez’s decision.

“All of us are aware of the tremendous pressures she was subjected to throughout her trial by publicity over the past year. We can imagine how this affected, not only the Ombudsman, but also her family, her friends and the very office she holds. And so we respect her decision to spare them and herself further punishment,” Horn said. With reports from Gil C. Cabacungan Jr. and Marlon Ramos

LEGAL NOTE 0057: ONLY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HAS CONTROL OVER PROSECUTION OF CRIMES. STATE MUST BE REPRESENTED BY OSG IN LITIGATION.

 

SOURCE: BUREAU OF CUSTOMS VS. PETER SHERMAN, MICHAEL WHELAN, TEODORO B. LINGAN, ATTY. OFELIA B. CAJIGAL and the COURT OF TAX APPEALS (G.R. NO. 190487, 13 APRIL 2011, CARPIO MORALES, J.) SUBJECT: CRIMES MUST BE PROSECUTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. (BRIEF TITLE: BUREAU OF CUSTOMS VS. SHERMAN ET AL.)

 

DIGEST: 

MARK SENSING CAUSED IMPORTATION OF BET SLIPS AND THERMAL PAPERS FOR PCSO BUT DID NOT PAY TAXES. BUREAU OF CUSTOMS FILED A CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST OFFICERS OF MARK SENSING. THE FISCAL FILED INFORMATION AT CTA. DOJ REVERSED FISCAL’S RESOLUTION. CTA WITHDREW INFORMATION UPON MOTION OF THE FISCAL. CUSTOMS LAWYER FILED A MOTION FOR RECON. CTA NOTED SUCH MOTION WITHOUT ACTION. CUSTOMS LAWYER FILED PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BEFORE THE SC.

 ISSUE: DID CTA COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION?

 RULING. NO. PETITION MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THE MOTION OF CUSTOMS DOES NOT BEAR THE IMPRIMATUR OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. ALSO, CUSTOMS IS NOT REPRESENTED BY THE OSG.

 SAID THE COURT:

 Parenthetically, petitioner is not represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in instituting the present petition, which contravenes established doctrine[1][20] that “the OSG shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation, or matter requiring the services of lawyers.”[2][21]

 IN FINE, as petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the challenged CTA Resolution did not bear the imprimatur of the public prosecutor to which the control of the prosecution of the case belongs, the present petition fails. 

 

TO WHOM DOES PROSECUTION OF CRIMES PERTAIN?

It is well-settled that prosecution of crimes pertains to the executive department of the government whose principal power and responsibility is to insure that laws are faithfully executed. Corollary to this power is the right to prosecute violators.[3][18]

 

CAN LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES PROSECUTE CRIMES?

 YES, BUT THEY MUST BE DESIGNATED AS SPECIAL PROSECUTORS. THEIR ROLE IS MERELY TO ASSIST. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MUST STILL HAVE CONTROL OVER THE CASE.

 All criminal actions commenced by complaint or information are prosecuted under the direction and control of public prosecutors.[4][19]  In the prosecution of special laws, the exigencies of public service sometimes require the designation of special prosecutors from different government agencies to assist the public prosecutor.  The designation does not, however, detract from the public prosecutor having control and supervision over the case.


[1][20]          Ong v. Genio,  G.R. No. 182336,December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 188, 194.

[2][21]          Citing Section 35 (1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987.

[3][18]          Webb v. De Leon, G.R. No. 121234, August 23, 1995, 247 SCRA 652, 685.

[4][19]          Rules of Court, Rule 110, Sec. 5.

CASE NO. 2011-0102: BUREAU OF CUSTOMS VS. PETER SHERMAN, MICHAEL WHELAN, TEODORO B. LINGAN, ATTY. OFELIA B. CAJIGAL and the COURT OF TAX APPEALS (G.R. NO. 190487, 13 APRIL 2011, CARPIO MORALES, J.) SUBJECT: CRIMES MUST BE PROSECUTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. (BRIEF TITLE: BUREAU OF CUSTOMS VS. SHERMAN ET AL.)

 

Republic of thePhilippines

Supreme Court

BaguioCity

 

THIRD DIVISION

  

BUREAU     OF    CUSTOMS,

Petitioner,

 G.R. No. 190487
  

– versus –

 

 Present:

 

CARPIO MORALES,

           Chairperson, J.,

 PETER SHERMAN, MICHAEL WHELAN, TEODORO B. LINGAN, ATTY. OFELIA B. CAJIGAL and the COURT OF TAX APPEALS, BRION,BERSAMIN,

VILLARAMA, JR.,

SERENO, JJ.

Respondents.

Promulgated:
   April 13, 2011

x—————————————————————————————–x

D E C I S  I O N

 

 

 

CARPIO MORALES, J.

 

 

          Mark Sensing Philippines, Inc. (MSPI) caused the importation of 255, 870,000 pieces of finished bet slips and 205, 200 rolls of finished thermal papers from June 2005 to January 2007.   MSPI facilitated the release of the shipment from the Clark Special Economic Zone (CSEZ), where it was brought, to the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) for its lotto operations in Luzon.  MSPI did not pay duties or taxes, however, prompting the Bureau of Customs (petitioner) to file, under its Run After The Smugglers (RATS) Program, a criminal complaint before the Department of Justice against herein respondents MSPI Chairman Peter Sherman, Managing Director Michael Whelan, Country Manager Atty. Ofelia B. Cajigal and Finance Manager and Corporate Secretary Teodoro B. Lingan, along with Erick B. Ariarte and Ricardo J. Ebuna and Eugenio Pasco, licensed customs broker who acted as agents of MSPI, for violation of Section 3601[1][1] vis-à-vis Sections 2530 (f) and (l) 5[2][2] and 101 (f)[3][3] of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, as amended and Republic Act No. 7916.[4][4]

          State Prosecutor Rohaira Lao-Tamano, by Resolution of March       25, 2008,[5][5] found probable cause against respondents and accordingly recommended the filing of Information against them.

          Respondents filed a petition for review[6][6] before the Secretary of Justice  during the pendency of which  the Information was filed on April 11, 2009 before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA),[7][7] the accusatory portion of which reads:

            That on or about June 2005 to December 2007, in Manila City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, in conspiracy with one another, made forty (40) unlawful importations of 255, 870 pieces of finished printed bet slips and 205, 200 rolls of finished thermal papers from Australia valued at approximately One Million Two Hundred Forty Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty US Dollars & Fourteen Cents (US$1,240,880.14), and caused the removal of said imported articles from the Clark Special Economic Zone and delivery thereof to the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Offices without payment of its corresponding duties and taxes estimated at around Fifteen Million Nine Hundred Seventeen Thousand Six Hundred Eleven Pesos and Eighty Three Cents (Php15,917,611.83) in violation of Section 3601 in relation to Sections 2530 and 101 paragraph (f) of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines to the damage and prejudice of herein complainant.

            CONTRARY TO LAW.[8][8]

          Only respondents Cajigal and Lingan were served warrants of arrest following which they posted cash bail bonds.

          By Resolution of March 20, 2009,[9][9] the Secretary of Justice reversed the State Prosecutor’s Resolution and accordingly directed the withdrawal of the Information.

          Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration having been denied by Resolution of April 29, 2009,[10][10] it elevated the case by certiorari before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA GR SP No. 10-9431.[11][11]

          In the meantime, Prosecutor Lao-Tamano filed before the CTA a Motion to Withdraw Information with Leave of Court[12][12] to which petitioner filed an Opposition.[13][13]  Respondents, on their part, moved for the dismissal of the Information.

          The CTA, by the herein assailed Resolution of September 3, 2009,[14][14] granted the withdrawal of, and accordingly dismissed the Information.

          Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration filed on September 22, 2009[15][15] was Noted Without Action by the CTA by Resolution of October 14, 2009, viz:

            Considering that an Entry of Judgment was already issued in this case on September 23, 2009, no Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated September 3, 2009 having been filed by State Prosecutor Rohairah Lao-Tamano of the Department of Justice; the “Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated 3 September 2009” filed on September 22, 2009 by Atty. Christopher F.C. Bolastig of the Bureau of Customs is NOTED, without action.

            SO ORDERED.[16][16]  (emphasis partly in the original and partly supplied)

          Hence, petitioner’s present petition for certiorari.[17][17]

          The petition is bereft of merit.

          It is well-settled that prosecution of crimes pertains to the executive department of the government whose principal power and responsibility is to insure that laws are faithfully executed. Corollary to this power is the right to prosecute violators.[18][18]

All criminal actions commenced by complaint or information are prosecuted under the direction and control of public prosecutors.[19][19]  In the prosecution of special laws, the exigencies of public service sometimes require the designation of special prosecutors from different government agencies to assist the public prosecutor.  The designation does not, however, detract from the public prosecutor having control and supervision over the case.

          As stated in the above-quoted ratio of the October 14, 2009 Resolution of the CTA, it noted without action petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, entry of judgment having been made as no Motion for Execution was filed by the State Prosecutor.

          By merely noting without action petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, the CTA did not gravely abuse its discretion.  For, as stated earlier, a public prosecutor has control and supervision over the cases.   The participation in the case of a private complainant, like petitioner, is limited to that of a witness, both in the criminal and civil aspect of the case. 

          Parenthetically, petitioner is not represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in instituting the present petition, which contravenes established doctrine[20][20] that “the OSG shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation, or matter requiring the services of lawyers.”[21][21]

IN FINE, as petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the challenged CTA Resolution did not bear the imprimatur of the public prosecutor to which the control of the prosecution of the case belongs, the present petition fails. 

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

 

SO ORDERED.

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

          Associate Justice

          WE CONCUR:

 

 

 

 

 

 

ARTURO D. BRION

Associate Justice

 

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

Associate Justice

 

 

 

 

 

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice

 

 

 

 

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Associate Justice

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTESTATION

 

 

          I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

 

                                  CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

                                      Associate Justice

                                   Chairperson

 

 

 

 

 

 

CERTIFICATION

 

 

          Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

                                                     RENATO C. CORONA

                                                                Chief Justice


 


[1][1]           Section 3601. Unlawful Importation. – Any person who shall fraudulently import or bring into the Philippines, or assist in so doing, any article, contrary to law, or shall receive, conceal, buy, sell or in any manner facilitate the transportation, concealment, or sale of such article after importation, knowing the same to be have been imported contrary to law shall be guilty of smuggling and shall be punished with:

x x x x

 

                In applying the above scale of penalties, if the offender is an alien and the prescribed penalty is not death, he shall be deported after serving the sentence without further proceedings for deportation. If the offender is a government official or employee, the penalty shall be the maximum as hereinabove prescribed and the offender shall suffer an additional penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office, to vote and to participate in any public election.

                When upon trial for violation of this section, the defendant is shown to have had possession of the article in question, possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant shall explain the possession to the satisfaction of the court: Provided, however, That the payment of the tax due after apprehension shall not constitute a valid defense in any prosecution under this section.

[2][2]           Section 2530. Property Subject to Forfeiture under Tariff and Customs Laws – Any vehicle, vessel or aircraft, cargo, article and other objects shall, under the following conditions be subject to forfeiture:

x x x x

(f) Any article the importation or exportation of which is effected or attempted contrary to law, or any article of prohibited importation or exportation, and all other articles which, in the opinion of the Collector, have been used, are or were entered to be used as instruments in the importation of exportation of the former:

(l) Any article sought to be imported or exported:

x x x x

 

                5. Through any other practice or device contrary to law by means of which such article was entered through a customhouse to the prejudice of the government.

[3][3]           Section 101. Prohibited Importations. – The importation into thePhilippines of the following articles is prohibited:

x x x x

(f) Lottery and sweepstakes tickets except those authorized by the Philippine Government, advertisements thereof and list of drawings therein.

[4][4]           Otherwise known as the Special Economic Zone Act of 1995.

[5][5]           Rollo, pp. 375-386.

[6][6]          Id. at 394-413.

[7][7]           The Court of Tax Appeals Second Division is composed of Associate Justices Juanito C. Castañeda (Chairperson), Erlinda P. Uy and Olga Palanca-Enriquez.

[8][8]           Rollo, pp. 387-388.

[9][9]          Id. at 414-418.

[10][10]        Id. at 424-425.

[11][11]        Id. at 426-462.

[12][12]        Id. at 463-469.

[13][13]        Id. at 470-473.

[14][14]        Id. at 27-38.

[15][15]         Ibid.

[16][16]        Id. at 40.

[17][17]        Id. at 2-24.

[18][18]         Webb v. De Leon, G.R. No. 121234, August 23, 1995, 247 SCRA 652, 685.

[19][19]         Rules of Court, Rule 110, Sec. 5.

[20][20]         Ong v. Genio,  G.R. No. 182336,December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 188, 194.

[21][21]         Citing Section 35 (1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987.