Essay About 163586Case Summary And Original Decision Of Uy

Castro Vs Deloria Case Study
Sharon CastroRespondents:RTC Judge Hon. Merlin Deloria, CAG.R. No. 163586CASE SUMMARY:Sharon Castro was a BIR Officer in Guimaras who was charged with Malversation of Public Funds, misappropriating worth P556,681.53 The Ombudsman was tasked to prosecute her, but she questioned the authority of the Ombudsman, citing the original decision of Uy vs. Sandiganbayan decided in 1999 which held that the Ombudsman had no prosecutorial powers over cases cognizable by RTC. The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman’s powers were plenary and unqualified, covering all offending “public officers”, and that the later Resolution of the Uy case prevailed, curing the restrictive defect in the Ombudsman’s powers.FACTS:Sharon Castro, a Revenue Officer of BIR Buenavista, Guimaras, was charged before the Ombudsman with Malversation of Public Funds. Shewas accused of misappropriating public funds worth P556,681.53 despite notice and demand upon her account for the funds. Castro filed a Motion to Quash, stating that the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction. She said that the Information failed to allege her salary grade—a material fact in the crime charged. Citing Uy vs. Sandiganbayan, since she had a salary grade of 27, her case should be within the jurisdiction of the RTC. She also added that the prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman are limited to the cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. RTC denied the Motion to Quash, recognizing the authority of the Ombudsman in the case. RTC cited theResolution of Uy vs.Sandiganbayan in 2001 which reversed the original decision in Uy vs.Sanidganbayan 1999 and expressly recognizing the prosecutorial andinvestigatory authority of the Ombudsman in cases cognizable by theRTC.ISSUES:W/N the Ombudsman had the authority to file a case againstpetitioner, as of May 31, 2001, in the light of the FIRSTDECISION in the Uy vs. Sandiganbayan case (1999), whichlimited the powers of the Ombudsman.W/N the Resolution of the Uy vs. Sandiganbayan case (2001)violates the constitutional provisions against ex-post facto lawsand the denial of due process.HELD:Ombudsman’s powers UPHELD.RATIO:The decision onUy vs. Sandiganbayan in 1991was that the Ombudsman’s prosecutorial powers were limited to Sandiganbayan cases, while the Resolution on the same case in 2001 expressly held that the Ombudsman shall have power on all criminal cases involving public officials.  Petitioner contends that the decision in 1991 should apply to her case,instead of the 2001 Resolution, because the Ombudsman instituted the action against her in April 26, 2000. Hence, the Information filed against