Binay v. People

 

Binay v. People

G.R. No. 213957-58

August 7, 2019

FACTS:

                For this Court's resolution is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition2 seeking to nullify the Office of the Ombudsman's Consolidated Resolution3 and Resolution. 4 In the Office of the Ombudsman's Consolidated Resolution, then Makati City Mayor Elenita S. Binay (Mayor Binay) was added among the accused in both the Information for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and m the amended Information for malversation. Records disclose that from September 2001 to February 2002, the Commission on Audit's Special Task Force of Local Government Units audited the financial transactions of the local government units in Metro Manila. The audit focused on their purchase of supplies, materials, and equipment amounting to Pl million and above.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the Ombudsman erred in its Resolution

HELD:

                No. From the time public respondent Office of the Ombudsman received the Complaints in 2003, various fact-finding investigations had been conducted before the Field Investigation Office was able to file the Supplemental Complaints in 2005. Aside from the Field Investigation Office, the Preliminary Investigation and Administrative Adjudication Bureau, the Preliminary Investigation, Administrative Adjudication and Review Bureau, and the Office of the Special Prosecutor each conducted separate investigations. Moreover, the Complaints involved respondents, each of whom was given the opportunity to submit and present counter-affidavits and evidence. Petitioner herself submitted her CounterAffidavit only in 2008, three (3) years after the Field Investigation Office's Supplemental Complaints had been filed. Additionally, public respondent Office of the Ombudsman strictly scrutinized the Commission on Audit's allegations involving the alleged numerous fraudulent transactions done within a 24-month period from September 2000 to September 2001. It must be noted that petitioner only invoked her right to speedy disposition of cases after the August 29, 2013 Consolidated Resolution had been issued. Prior to this, petitioner never raised it as an issue. Nor did she file any written manifestation or motion for the early resolution of the case.