G.R. No. 257342 - MARY ELIZABETH ORTIGA TY, VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (HRET) AND PROSPERO ARREZA PICHAY, JR..

Ruling

accordingly imposed against them pursuant to Section 52-A, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service , with accessory penalties of forfeiture of all benefits, except leave credits, and disqualification to hold any public office. With respect to ATTY. ARNALDO M. ESPINAS , the administrative case against him is DISMISSED for lack of substantial evidence. This Order is immediately executory pursuant to Ombudsman Memorandum Circular No. 01, Series of 2006, in relation to paragraph 1, Section 27 of R.A. 6770, and Section 7, Rule III, Administrative Order No. 7, Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, as amended , and in accordance with the ruling of the Supreme Court in Ombudsman vs. Joel Samaniego . Accordingly, let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Honorable Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa Jr. for the implementation hereof against PROSPERO A. PICHAY, JR, DANIEL I. LANDINGIN , and WILFREDO M. FELEO . SO ORDERED . [14] (Emphasis in the original; citations omitted) Pichay, Jr. filed a Verified Motion for Reconsideration, dated July 8, 2011, which the Ombudsman denied in a Joint Order, [15] dated August 1, 2011. The Ruling of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 127341 Aggrieved, Pichay, Jr. filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals ( CA ). The CA, in CA-G.R. SP No. 127341, affirmed the Decision of the Ombudsman in its Decision, [16] dated October 23, 2013, and Resolution, [17] dated February 24, 2014. [18] The CA ruled that there was substantial evidence to prove that the acts complained of were inspired by an intention to violate the law, or constitute a flagrant disregard of established rules, and that the elements particular to grave misconduct were adequately proven. [19] Subsequently, the CA Decision and Resolution were elevated to this Court in Pichay, Jr. v. Tutol , docketed as G.R. No. 211515. On November 24, 2015, the Ombudsman furnished the Commission on Elections ( COMELEC ) copies of its Decision, dated July 4, 2011, and Joint Order, dated August 1, 2011. [20] Thereafter, the Ombudsman issued the 1 st Indorsement, [21] dated December 19, 2015, referring its Decision and Joint Order in OMB-C-A-10-0426-I, to the COMELEC for immediate implementation of the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding public office imposed upon Pichay, Jr. The Ombudsman likewise advised the COMELEC that its Decision and Joint Order were upheld by the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 127341. The Ombudsman, likewise, issued its 1 st Indorsement, [22] dated July 14, 2016, referring to the House of Representatives ( HOR ) copies of the Ombudsman Decision, dated July 4, 2011, and Joint Order, dated August 1, 2011, as well as the CA Decision, dated October 23, 2013, for its appropriate action. As for the criminal aspect of the case, the Sandiganbayan in SB-16-CRM-0425, SB-16-CRM-0426, SB-16-CRM-0427, and SB-16-CRM-0432, issued the Resolutions, dated Octob