Section 10 of RA 6713

Liberato Carabeo vs. Sandiganbayan

The informations filed with the Sandiganbayan totaled eight in all. These, in essence, accused Carabeo
of failing to disclose several items in his sworn SALN filed over the years.

Two informations were raffled to the Sandiganbayan’s Fourth Division. They charged Carabeo with
failing to disclose personal properties consisting of three motor vehicles, misdeclaring the acquisition cost
of a real property in Laguna, and falsely declaring his net worth in his SALN for 2003.

At the pre-trial of these cases, Carabeo submitted his Pre-Trial Brief, proposing the following issues for
trial:

1. Whether or not the accused was allowed to previously exercise his right to be informed
beforehand and to take the necessary corrective action on questions concerning his Statement of
Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN, for brevity), as provided under Section 10 of Republic
Act No. 6713 before the instant charges were filed against him;

2. Whether or not the accused committed the crime of falsification of Public Documents under
Paragraph 4, Article 171, Revised Penal Code, as amended;

3. Whether or not the accused committed a violation of Section 7, Republic Act No. 3019, as
amended, in relation to Section 8, Republic Act. No. 6713; and

4. Whether or not the filing of the instant case is premature in the light of the pending Petition for
Certiorari before the Supreme Court entitled: "Liberato M. Carabeo, vs. Court of Appeals,
Simeon V. Marcelo, et al., (docketed as "G.R. No. 178000"), questioning: (1) the legality, validity
and constitutionality of Executive Order 259, upon which the present charges arose; and (2)
whether the accused’s right to be informed "beforehand" and to take the "necessary corrective
action" on questions regarding his SALN, as clearly mandated under Section 10 of RA 6713, was
blatantly disregarded and set aside during the course of the investigation by the Office of the
Ombudsman.

However, the Pre-Trial Order of the Sandiganbayan did not include the issues as crafted by
Carabeo. This prompted him to seek on September 1, 2009 the correction of the pre-trial order to
include such issues.

On September 15, 2009 the Fourth Division issued a Resolution, stating that the issues in the pre-
trial order already covered Carabeo’s second and third proposed issues. As to the first and fourth
issues, the Sandiganbayan said that Carabeo’s head office’s review was irrelevant and cannot
bar the Office of the Ombudsman from conducting an independent investigation of his
alleged offenses. Carabeo filed a motion for reconsideration with respect to his first and
fourth issues but the Sandiganbayan denied this on October 29, 2009, hence, this special
civil action of certiorari.

Issue: WON Carabeo is entitled to be informed of any error in his SALN and given the opportunity to
correct the same pursuant to Section 101 of R.A. 6713

Ruling: True, Section 10 of R.A. 6713 provides that when the head of office finds the SALN of
a subordinate incomplete or not in the proper form such head of office must call the
subordinate’s attention to such omission and give him the chance to rectify the same. But this
procedure is an internal office matter. Whether or not the head of office has taken such step with
respect to a particular subordinate cannot bar the Office of the Ombudsman from investigating
the latter.6 Its power to investigate and prosecute erring government officials cannot be made
dependent on the prior action of another office. To hold otherwise would be to diminish its
constitutionally guarded independence.

Further, Carabeo’s reliance on his supposed right to notice regarding errors in his SALNs and to
be told to correct the same is misplaced. The notice and correction referred to in Section 10 are
intended merely to ensure that SALNs are "submitted on time, are complete, and are in proper
form." Obviously, these refer to formal defects in the SALNs. The charges against Carabeo,
however, are for falsification of the assets side of his SALNs and for declaring a false net worth.
These are substantive, not formal defects. Indeed, while the Court said in Pleyto that heads of
offices have the duty to review their subordinates’ SALNs, it would be absurd to require such
heads to run a check on the truth of what the SALNs state and require their subordinates to
correct whatever lies these contain. The responsibility for truth in those SALNs belongs to the
subordinates who prepared them, not to the heads of their offices.

Thus, the Sandiganbayan did not gravely abuse its discretion in excluding from its pre-trial order
the first and fourth issues that Carabeo proposed.

Additionally, the Office of the Ombudsman, not the DOF-RIPS, that filed the criminal cases
against him before the Sandiganbayan. That office is vested with the sole power to investigate
and prosecute, motu proprio or on complaint of any person, any act or omission of any public
officer or employee, office, or agency when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust,
improper, or inefficient.5 The Office of the Ombudsman could file the informations subject of
these cases without any help from the DOF-RIPS.

1
Section 10. Review and Compliance Procedure. – (a) The designated Committees of both Houses of the Congress shall establish procedures for
the review of statements to determine whether said statements have been submitted on time, are complete, and are in proper form. In the event a
determination is made that a statement is not so filed, the appropriate Committee shall so inform the reporting individual and direct him to take
the necessary corrective action.
(b) In order to carry out their responsibilities under this Act, the designated Committees of both houses of the Congress shall have the power
within their respective jurisdictions, to render any opinion interpreting this Act, in writing, to persons covered by this Act, subject in each
instance to the approval of the affirmative vote of the majority of the particular House concerned.
The individual to whom the opinion is rendered, and any other individual involved in a similar factual situation, and who, after issuance of the
opinion acts in good faith in accordance with it shall not be subject to any sanction provided in this Act.
(c) The heads of other offices shall perform the duties stated in subsections (a) and (b) hereof insofar as their respective offices are concerned,
subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice, in the case of the Executive Department and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in the case
of the Judicial Department.1avvphi1