G.R. No. 201643 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, VS. JOSE T. CAPULONG.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the Ombudsman issued an Order [8] dated December 7, 2009 directing Capulong to file a counter-affidavit. In his Counter-Affidavit [9] filed on February 24, 2010, Capulong denied all the allegations against him, asserting that he had been diligently filing his SALNs since his assumption of office. He claimed that since he had never received any order from their head office requiring him to submit his SALNs for the aforesaid periods as stated under Section 3 [10] of the Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 060231, a presumption exists that he had faithfully complied with the annual filing of the SALN. He further asserted that he was not informed by his wife that she was made an incorporator of the aforementioned corporations; hence there was no willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood on his part. Besides, the registration of both corporations had already been revoked by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as of March 15, 2004. On March 17, 2010, Capulong filed a Rejoinder [11] arguing that: (1) the submission of photocopies of his SALNs for calendar years 1991 and 1998 to a responsive pleading is a matter of ordinary procedure; (2) he had filed his SALNs in accordance with the regular procedure practiced in the Manila International Container Port (MICP) of the BOC; (3) his 1991 and 1998 SALNs are contained in the records of the BOC, as evidenced by the MICP-BOC Certification dated March 15, 2010; (4) the complaint against him is barred by prescription; (5) no legal and factual basis exists to support the complaint; and (6) criminal rules should be strictly construed. Capulong filed a motion to set the case for hearing for the presentation of certified true copies of his SALNs for calendar years 1991 and 1998. He also filed, on July 30, 2010, a motion for early resolution of the complaint considering that the parties have already filed their respective pleadings. However, the Ombudsman did not act on the said motions. On March 30, 2011, Capulong received an undated Order [12] issued by the Ombudsman placing him under preventive suspension without pay which shall continue until the case is terminated but shall not exceed six months effective from receipt of the Order. Capulong filed an Urgent Motion to Lift/Reconsider Order of Preventive Suspension with Motion to Resolve [13] contending that his preventive suspension was not warranted because his continued stay in office will not prejudice the investigation of the case against him. [14] Questioning the preventive suspension and wary of the threatening and coercive nature of the Ombudsmans order, Capulong, on April 19, 2011, filed with the CA a petition for certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 119071, with urgent prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a writ of preliminary injunction. [15] The CA granted the petition and issued a TRO dated April 26, 2011, enjoining and prohibiting the Ombudsman and any person representing them or acting und