Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 296 views

    Agdepa V Ombudsman Case 7

    Uploaded by

    Kuthe Ig Toots
    The Supreme Court ruled that Rodolfo Agdeppa failed to prove that the Ombudsman caused him undue injury. Agdeppa accused Ombudsman officials of violating the Anti-Graft law for finding probable cause in a complaint against him regarding overpayment to a contractor. However, the Court found no evidence of manifest partiality, bad faith, or gross negligence by the Ombudsman. The Court also ruled that Agdeppa did not provide substantial evidence that the Ombudsman violated its own rules or deprived Agdeppa of a speedy resolution of his case.

    Copyright:

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

    Agdepa V Ombudsman Case 7

    Uploaded by

    Kuthe Ig Toots
    296 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Rodolfo Agdeppa failed to prove that the Ombudsman caused him undue injury. Agdeppa accused Ombudsman officials of violating the Anti-Graft law for finding probable cause in a complaint against him regarding overpayment to a contractor. However, the Court found no evidence of manifest partiality, bad faith, or gross negligence by the Ombudsman. The Court also ruled that Agdeppa did not provide substantial evidence that the Ombudsman violated its own rules or deprived Agdeppa of a speedy resolution of his case.

    Original Description:

    agdepa case

    Original Title

    Agdepa v Ombudsman Case 7

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Rodolfo Agdeppa failed to prove that the Ombudsman caused him undue injury. Agdeppa accused Ombudsman officials of violating the Anti-Graft law for finding probable cause in a complaint against him regarding overpayment to a contractor. However, the Court found no evidence of manifest partiality, bad faith, or gross negligence by the Ombudsman. The Court also ruled that Agdeppa did not provide substantial evidence that the Ombudsman violated its own rules or deprived Agdeppa of a speedy resolution of his case.

    Copyright:

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

    Agdepa V Ombudsman Case 7

    Uploaded by

    Kuthe Ig Toots
    The Supreme Court ruled that Rodolfo Agdeppa failed to prove that the Ombudsman caused him undue injury. Agdeppa accused Ombudsman officials of violating the Anti-Graft law for finding probable cause in a complaint against him regarding overpayment to a contractor. However, the Court found no evidence of manifest partiality, bad faith, or gross negligence by the Ombudsman. The Court also ruled that Agdeppa did not provide substantial evidence that the Ombudsman violated its own rules or deprived Agdeppa of a speedy resolution of his case.

    Copyright:

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

    RODOLFO M. AGDEPPA, v.

    HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,


    ACTING THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR
    THE MILITARY, MARYDEL B. JARLOS-MARTIN, EMMANUEL M.
    LAUREZO AND ILUMINADO L. JUNIA, JR..G.R. No. 146376, April 23,
    2014
    FACTS:
    Junia, then Group Manager for the Project Technical Services Group of
    the National Housing Authority (NHA), filed a Complaint before the Office of
    the Ombudsman against several NHA officials, together with Agdeppa and
    Castillo, resident auditors of the Commission on Audit (COA) at the NHA.
    Junias Complaint was docketed as OMB-0-99-1015. Junia alleged that
    Supra Construction (SupraCon), the contractor for the NHA project was
    overpaid in the total amount of P2,044,488.71. The overpayment was
    allegedly facilitated through the dubious and confusing audit reports
    prepared by Agdeppa and endorsed by Castillo, to the detriment, damage,
    and prejudice of the Government.
    Agdeppa filed his Answer on July 26, 1999, denying Junias allegations
    against him and praying for the dismissal of the Complaint in OMB-0-991015 for utter lack of merit.
    Jarlos-Martin issued a Resolution in OMB-0-99-1015 finding probable cause
    to indict Agdepa and Castillo for violation of section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft
    and Corrupt Practices Act relative to the overpayment of the amount of
    P182,543.43 to SUPRA Construction and orders that an information be filed
    against
    them
    in
    the
    proper
    court.
    Meanwhile, as his Motion to Resolve in OMB-0-99-1015 was still unacted
    upon, Agdeppa filed before the Office of the Ombudsman an AffidavitComplaint against Jarlos-Martin, Laurezo, and Junia, docketed as OMB-MILCRIM-00-0470. Agdeppa accused Jarlos-Martin, Laurezo, and Junia of
    violating Section 3(a), (e), (f), and (j) of Republic Act No. 3019; and Rule II,
    Section 4(a), (b), and (g) of Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 07,
    dated April 10, 1990, otherwise known as the Rules of Procedure of the
    Office of the Ombudsman.
    ISSUE: Whether respondent Jarlos-Martin caused damage and injury to
    Agdeppa because she set aside the records of OMB-0-99-1015, which was
    already complete when she issued her Order dated 6 October 1999.

    HELD:
    To warrant the indictment of the respondents for violation of Section
    3(e) of RA 3019, it is not enough that the act of the respondents in the
    discharge of their official function caused undue injury to Agdeppa. It
    behooves Agdeppa to prove that the assailed act must have been done with
    manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence
    (Alejandro vs. People, 170 SCRA 400). Moreover, unlike in actions for torts,
    undue injury in Section 3(e) of RA 3019 cannot be presumed even after a
    wrong or a violation of right has been established, its existence must be
    proven as one of the elements of the crime, and that the injury be specified,
    quantified, and proven to the point of moral certainty. They cannot be based
    on flimsy and non-substantial evidence or upon speculation, conjecture or
    guesswork; mere inconvenience is not constitutive of undue injury (Llorente
    vs. Sandiganbayan, 287 SCRA 382).
    There is no merit to Agdeppas contention that by dismissing his
    Affidavit-Complaint in OMB-MIL-CRIM-00-0470, the Office of the
    Ombudsman tolerated the realignment of the Ombudsman Rules of
    Procedure and violation of Agdeppas right to the speedy disposition of his
    case. There is utter lack of evidence presented by Agdeppa that JarlosMartin, Laurezo, and Junia conspired to maliciously and deliberately conduct
    the preliminary investigation in OMB-0-99-1015 to Agdeppas prejudice.

    You might also like