REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
SECOND DIVISION
MANILA

ANNA TURARAY GAMMAD

Petitioner,
G.R. No. 259592 (formerly
docketed as UDK 17292)
OMB-L-C-19-0166
-versus- For: Violation of Article 217 of
the Revised Penal Code
OMB-L-C-19-0181
For: Violation of Article 217 of
the Revised Penal Code

CORNELIO L. SUMIDO
Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon,
CARLO F. EVANGELISTA
(Graft Investigation and Prosecution
Officer I, and
ADORACION A. AGBADA (Director,
Preliminary
Investigation, Administrative
Adjudication and
Prosecution Bureau),
STATE AUDITOR IV BERNARDO P.
LLAPITAN, STATE AUDITOR III
ERICKSON G. ZORILLA, STATE
AUDITOR III KRISKA ALELI D.
UTRELA, STATE AUDITOR I LOUISE
D. TUSCANO, AND STATE AUDITOR
I JAHNEEN M. BATTUNG-
MERDEGIA (in their capacity as State
Auditors of the Commission on Audit)
Respondents.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Petitioner ANNA TURARAY GAMMAD (“Petitioner”), respectfully

moves for the reconsideration of the Order dated March 16, 2022 (the
“Assailed Order”),1 on the basis of the following presentation:
1
A copy of the Assailed Order is attached herein as Annex “A”.

Page 1 of 25
 1. Petitioners respectfully moves for the reconsideration of the
Assailed Order on the following grounds:

1.1. Contrary to the Assailed Order, it is respectfully

submitted that this Honorable Court erred in ruling that the
Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for the issuance of Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction dated September 17,
2021 (“Petition”) failed to sufficiently show that the questioned
judgment is tainted with grave abuse of discretion and erred in
denying the prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”).

1.1.1. Contrary to the Assailed Order, Petitioner

was able to prove the Public Respondents Bernardo P.
Llapitan (“Llapitan”), Erickson G. Zorilla (“Zorilla”), Kriska
Aleli D. Utrela (“Utrela”), Louise D. Tuscano (“Tuscano”), and
Jahneed M. Battung-Merdegia (“Battung-Merdegia”) failed to
establish a case of malversation of public funds and property
under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code against
Petitioner.

1.1.2. The allegations in the Consolidated

Resolution dated February 10, 2020 (the “Assailed
Resolution”) were riddled with clear and obvious
inconsistencies proving that Public Respondents Cornelio L.
Sumido (“Sumido”), Carlo F. Evangelista (“Evangelist”), and
Adoracion A. Agbada (“Agbada”) committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of excess jurisdiction in issuing
the Assailed Resolution.

1.2. Contrary to the Assailed Order, it is respectfully

submitted that there is grave abuse in the issuance and
implementation of the Assailed Resolution which further violated
Petitioner’s right to due process.
1.2.1. The Office of the Ombudsman, through
Public Respondents Sumido, Evangelista and Agbada, failed
to send a copy of the Assailed Resolution to Petitioner in
violation of the Administrative Order No. 07 or the “Rules of
Procedure of the Ombudsman”.

1.2.2. Such failure of the Office of the

Ombudsman, through the Public Respondents Sumido,
Evangelista and Agbada, to send a copy of the Assailed
Resolution to Petitioner violated her right to due process.

Page 2 of 25
 1.3. Contrary to the Assailed Order, this Honorable Supreme
Court erred in denying the Petition due to alleged procedural
lapses.

1.4. Assuming, without admitting, that there are procedural

lapses to the Petition, the grave abuse of discretion in the issuance
and implementation of the Assailed Resolution has unjustly
prejudiced Petitioner, which warrants the relaxation of procedural
rules.

II.
TIMELINESS OF THE MOTION

2. On May 14, 2022, Petitioner received the Assailed Order

denying the Petition “for failure to sufficiently show that the questioned
judgment is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, and to DENY the
prayer for TRO,” and proceeded to enumerate several alleged procedural
lapses to the Petition.

3. Hence, this Motion for Reconsideration is filed within the

fifteen (15) – day reglementary period under the Revised Rules of Court.2

III.
GROUNDS FOR MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

A. THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT

ERRED IN RULING THAT THE PETITION
FAILED TO SUFFICIENTLY SHOW THAT
THE QUESTIONED JUDGMENT IS
TAINTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AND TO DENY THE PRAYER
FOR A TRO.

B. THE GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN

THE ISSUANCE AND IMPLEMENTION OF
2
Since the filing of the Motion falls on a Sunday, the same may be filed on the next working
day pursuant to Section 1, Rule 22 of the Revised Rules of Court which states that:

Section 1. How to compute time. – In computing any period of time prescribed

or allowed by these Rules, or by order of the court, or by any applicable statute,
the day of the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to
run is to be excluded and the date of performance included. If the last day of
the period, as thus computed, falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal
holiday in the place where the court sits, the time shall not run until the
next working day. (Emphasis supplied.)

Page 3 of 25
 THE ASSAILED RESOLUTION FURTHER
VIOLATED PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO DUE
PROCESS.

C. THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT

ERRED IN DENYING THE PETITION DUE
TO ALLEGED PROCEDURAL LAPSES.

D. ASSUMING, WITHOUT ADMITTING, THAT

THERE ARE PROCEDURAL LAPSES TO
THE PETITION, THE GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN THE ISSUANCE AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ASSAILED
RESOLUTION HAVE UNJUSTLY
PREJUDICED PETITIONER, WHICH
WARRANTS THE RELAXATION OF
PROCEDURAL RULES.

IV.
DISCUSSION

A. THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT

ERRED IN RULING THAT THE PETITION
FAILED TO SUFFICIENTLY SHOW THAT
THE QUESTIONED JUDGMENT IS
TAINTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AND TO DENY THE PRAYER
FOR A TRO.

4. Contrary to the allegations of this Honorable Court, Petitioner

sufficiently proved that the questioned judgment is tainted with grave
abuse of discretion which substantiated its prayer for TRO.

5. As discussed in the Petition, Public Respondents Llapitan

and Zorilla failed to establish a case of malversation of public funds and
property under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code in OMB-L-C-19-
0166:

a. Public Respondents Llapitan and Zorilla alleged the

Petitioner failed to explain their findings. This brazen allegation
goes against the fact that Public Respondents Llapitan and Zorilla
actually took retained all records pertaining to the audit and
the Petitioner was left without sufficient records which she
can cite to explain the alleged discrepancies.

Page 4 of 25
 b. By taking the records which are basis of comprehensive
explanation against their allegations, Public Respondents Llapitan
and Zorilla essentially ascertained that Petitioner would not be able
to exhaustively explain all of their allegations. Again, evidence
would show that Petitioner requested and Public Respondent
Zorilla promised to the return of the documents subjected to audit
so she can review them and provide her explanation. 3 Despite the
promise of return, Public Respondents Llapitan and Zorilla
manifestly withheld those records from Petitioner.

c. As provided in the Assailed Resolution, Public

Respondent Llapitan himself duly certified and signed a copy of the
Cashbook stating that as of December 16, 2015, there were no
discrepancies in the Petitioner’s Cashbook.

d. Despite being withheld with the records, Petitioner still

strived to provide as much explanation to counter the allegations of
Public Respondents Llapitan and Zorilla. This runs counter to their
accusation that Petitioner failed to explain the alleged
discrepancies. In her Letter dated September 12, 2017, Petitioner
clearly stated that there are cash items that were deposited which
should be considered as proper liquidation.4

e. Specific to the above is the amount of ₱1,908,139.08 for

the year ending December 31, 2013 as conducted by Public
Respondents Llapitan and Zorilla. However, the same was
completely deposited on January 2014 which was confirmed by no
other than Ms. Tessie S. Mangaccat of the Department of Finance,
Region 2 as evidenced by a copy of a Letter from Ms. Mangaccat, a
Certification, a letter from Roy S. Lasam Auditor of the Local
Government of Gattaran and a letter which was addressed to
Tessie S. Mangaccat, ICO-regional Director, Bureau of Local Govt
Finance, Region 2.5

f. Public respondent Llapitan himself certified that the

special education trust fund and general fund is intact and in
proper order which directly contravenes the accusation of
shortages as evidenced by the records of the Special Education
Trust and General Trust Fund.

2. All these factual allegations were left uncontroverted by

Public Respondents Llapitan and Zorilla, who incessantly insisted

3
Copies of these correspondence are attached as Annexes “K” and “L” of the Petition.
4
A copy of the Letter dated September 12, 2017 is attached as Annex “M” of the Petition.
5
Copies of these letters are attached as Annexes “N”, “N-1” and “N-2” of the Petition.

Page 5 of 25
further reconciliation despite knowing that all records pertaining to the
audit are in their possession.

6. Similarly, Public Respondents Utrela, Zorilla, Tuscano and

Battung-Merdegia, failed to establish a case of malversation of public
funds and property under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code in OMB-
L-C-19-0181:

6.1. Similar to the case in OMB-L-C-19-0166, Public

Respondents Utrela, Zorilla, Tuscano and Battung-Merdegia
baselessly deprived Petitioner of the records of the audit, making it
virtually impossible for the Petitioner to specifically explain the
allegations of discrepancy against her.

6.2. Moreover, Paragraph number 4 of the Joint Affidavit of

Public Respondents Utrela, Zorilla, Tuscano and Battung-Merdegia
only states - “That we conducted an examination of the cash and
accounts of Ms. Anna T. Gammad for the period of August, 2016 to
September 11, 2017 and in our examination of her cash and
accounts, we found her to be short of her accountability by
P935,675.21.”

6.3. It should be noted that Public Respondents Utrela,

Zorilla, Tuscano and Battung-Merdegia, failed to adduce any
evidence to prove this general and vague statement of allegation.

6.4. Thus, the Assailed Resolution finding probable cause

was issued only on the basis of the general and vague allegations
in the Joint Affidavit.

6.5. This runs counter to Sections 6 and 9 of the Revised

Rules of Criminal Procedure:

Section 6: Sufficiency of complaint or information:

A complaint or information is sufficient if it states
the name of the accused; the designation of the
offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense; and the
place where the offense was committed. xxx

xxx xxx xxx

Section 9: Cause of the Accusation: The acts or

omissions complained of as constituting the
offense and the qualifying and aggravating
circumstances must be stated in ordinary and

Page 6 of 25
 concise language and not necessarily in the
language used in the statute but in terms
sufficient to enable a person of common
understanding to know what offense is being
charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances and for the court to pronounce
judgment.

6.6. The right to be informed of the nature and certainty of

the accusation is a basic right that should have been afforded to
the Petitioner.

6.7. In Enrile v. People of the Philippines et. al, 6 this

Honorable Supreme Court stated that the act or conduct imputed
must be described with sufficient particularity to enable the
accused to defend himself properly.

Under the Constitution, a person who stands

charged of a criminal offense has the right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him. This right has long been
established in English law, and is the same right
expressly guaranteed in the 1987 Constitution.
This right requires that the offense charged be
stated with clarity and with certainty to
inform the accused of the crime he is facing in
sufficient detail to enable him to prepare his
defense.

xxx xxx xxx

The objective, in short, is to describe the act with

sufficient certainty to appraise the accused of the
nature of the charge against him and to avoid
possible surprises that may lead to injustice.
Otherwise, the accused with be left speculating on
why he has been charged at all.

In People vs. Hon. Mencias, et al., the Court

further explained that a person’s
constitutional right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him
signifies that an accused should be given the
necessary data on why he is the subject of a
criminal proceeding. The Court added that the
6
G.R. No. 213455, 11 August 2015.

Page 7 of 25
 act or conduct imputed of a person must be
described with sufficient particularity to
enable the accused to defend himself properly.

The general grant and recognition of a protected

right emanates from Section 1, Article III of the
1987 Constitution which states that no person
shall be deprived of life, liberty and property
without due process of law. The purpose of the
law is to prevent governmental encroachment
against the life, liberty and property of individuals;
to secure the individual from the arbitrary
exercise of the powers of the government,
unrestrained by the established principled of
private rights and distributive justice xxx; and to
secure to all persons equal and impartial justice
and the benefit of the general law.

Separately from Section 1, Article III is the specific

and direct underlying root of the right to
information in criminal proceedings- Section
14(1), Article III - which provides that “No person
shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law.” Thus, no doubt
exists that the right to be informed of the
cause of the accusation in a criminal case has
deep constitutional roots that, rather than
being cavalierly disregarded, should be
carefully protected. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied.)

7. Apart from the above, the allegations against Petitioner are

riddled with clear and obvious inconsistencies proving that Public
Respondents committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
excess jurisdiction in issuing the Assailed Resolution:

7.1. As discussed, in pages 4 and 5 of the Assailed

Resolution,7 Public Respondent Evangelista took note of Petitioner’s
claim that she requested for a more specific and precise
enumeration of her accountabilities and misplaced monies.

xxx xxx xxx

“Respondent avers that contrary to the allegation

that she failed to explain her side, it is noteworthy
7
A copy of the Assailed Resolution is attached as Annex “A” of the Petition.

Page 8 of 25
 that she sent an explanation letter and requested
for a more specific and precise enumeration of her
accountabilities and misplaced monies.

Respondent explains that all records and books of

accountability were taken by the COA Audit Team
and to date, are still in the latter’s possession and
control. She, therefore, could only guess as to
what particulars on the alleged shortages were
there. Respondent maintains that she should have
been furnished, at the very least, a certified
reproduction of the documents that supposedly
have discrepancies”

xxx xxx xxx

7.2. However, despite such admitted fact and despite the

lack of factual and legal basis to support the allegations, the
Assailed Resolution found probable cause against Petitioner which
prove that Public Respondents Sumido, Evangelista and Agbada
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess
jurisdiction.

7.3. The case against Petitioner involved allegations of

missing funds on the periods as early as September 30, 2013 to
August 10, 2016 and August 11, 2016 to September 11, 2017,
wherein Petitioner was issued clearances.

7.4. The Human Resource Management Office of the Local

Government Unit of Gattaran, through Ms. Kathryn B. Garcia, fully
certified that the Petitioner was completely cleared of any and all
financial responsibilities or obligations occurring as a Municipal
Treasurer as evidenced by a copy of a Certification. 8 This
Certification clearing Petitioner of any and all financial
responsibilities or obligations clearly controverts any and all
allegations by the Public Respondents.
7.5. Thus, contrary to the findings in the Assailed Order, the
foregoing clearly shows grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction in finding probable cause against
Petitioner.

8. Here, it is clear that the elements of acts of malversation

under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code were not all complied with: 9
a) that the offender be a public officer; (b) that he had custody or control

8
A copy of the Certification is attached as Annex “O” in the Petition.
9
Zoleta v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 185224, 29 July 2015.

Page 9 of 25
of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; (c) that those
funds or property were public funds or property for which he was
accountable; and (d) that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or
consented, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted
another person to take them. All these elements have been established
by the prosecution.

9. In this case, the most important element is the act

appropriation, taking, or misappropriation. However, it is clear that
such acts were not proved by Public Respondents Llapitan, Zorilla,
Utrela, Tuscano, and Battung-Merdegiaare by probable cause.

9.1. No evidence was adduced to prove that Petitioner

appropriated, took, or misappropriated any funds.

9.2. Petitioner was clearly and blatantly deprived of all

appropriate records of the audit.

9.3. Moreover, the evidence that she presented proving

proper accounting of the funds and clearances from all obligations
from the Municipal of Gattaran were all ignored.

10. It is clear that Public Respondents failed to prove that these

cases filed against Petitioner has probable cause.

11. Given this, in the paramount interest of justice, this

Honorable Court must thus, immediately grant the Petition, reverse the
Assailed Resolution, and issue the TRO to “secure the innocent against
hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution” and “protect the State from
useless and expensive trials.”

12. In Collantes v. Marcelo,10 the Supreme Court held that if

evidence is insufficient to sustain a prima facie case or that no probable
cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused, the
accused should be relieved of trial:

Agencies tasked with the preliminary investigation and

prosecution of crimes should never forget that the
purpose of a preliminary investigation is to secure
the innocent against hasty, malicious and
oppressive prosecution, and to protect one from an
open and public accusation of crime, from the trouble,
expense and anxiety of a public trial, and also to
protect the State from useless and expensive trials.
It is, therefore, imperative upon such agencies to
10
G.R. Nos. 167006-07, 14 August 2007.

Page 10 of 25
 relieve any person from the trauma of going through
a trial once it is ascertained that the evidence is
insufficient to sustain a prima facie case or that no
probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to
the guilt of the accused. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied.)

13. As such, considering that there is absolutely no basis to rule

that probable case exists to form a sufficient belief as to her guilt,
Petitioner should be relieved of this case once and for all through the
grant of this Petition, reversal of the Assailed Resolution and the
issuance of the TRO.

14. Moreover, as will be further explained below, such grave

abuse of discretion in the issuance and implementation of the Assailed
Resolution further violated Petitioner’s right to due process.

B. THE GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN

THE ISSUANCE AND IMPLEMENTION OF
THE ASSAILED RESOLUTION WHICH
FURTHER VIOLATED PETITIONER’S
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.
(1) The Office of the Ombudsman,
through the Public Respondents
Sumido, Evangelista and Agbada,
failed to send a copy of the Assailed
Resolution to Petitioner in violation
of the Administrative Order No. 07
or the “Rules of Procedure of the
Ombudsman”.

15. To recall, the Assailed Resolution was issued from the cases
filed by the Commission of Audit through Public Respondents Llapitan,
Zorilla, Utrela, Tuscano, and Battung-Merdegiaare with the Office of the
Ombudsman docketed as OMB-L-C-19-0166 for alleged Violation of
Article 217 (Malversation of Public Funds and Property) and OMB-L-C-
19-0181 for alleged Violation of Article 217 (Malversation of Public Funds
and Property), both under the Revised Penal Code, in 2019.

16. In response to the allegations in these cases, Petitioner was

able to file her counter-affidavits to the charges against her before the
Office of the Ombudsman. After filing her counter-affidavits and such
other relevant responsive pleadings, the Petitioner no longer heard from
the Office of the Ombudsman.

Page 11 of 25
 17. Without having received a copy of the Assailed
Resolution, Petitioner was served Warrants of Arrest, both dated 21
January 2021, implementing the Informations, both dated 11 February
2020, issued pursuant to the Assailed Resolution.

18. Otherwise stated, Public Respondents Sumido, Evangelista

and Agbada failed to send Respondent a copy of the Assailed Resolution
in violation Section 6, Rule II of Administrative Order No. 07 or the
“Rules of Procedure of the Ombudsman” (“OMB Rules”):

Section 6. Notice to parties. – The parties shall be

served with a copy of the resolution as finally
approved by the Ombudsman or by the proper
Deputy Ombudsman. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied.)

19. It should be emphasized that Petitioner did not receive any

copy of the Resolution prior to the issuance of the Warrants of Arrest, in
violation of the OMB Rules.

20. This failure of Public Respondents Sumido, Evangelista and

Agbada to send a copy of the Assailed Resolution to Petitioner is
supported by the Certification issued by the Office of the Postmaster of
Gattaran, Cagayan stating therein that the Registered Letter No. RD
919035686ZZ and Registered Letter No. RD 919035553ZZ addressed
to Anna Gammad bearing the Assailed Resolution were returned to
sender to the Office of the Ombudsman:

Page 12 of 25
 21. Upon later inspection of the copy of the Assailed Resolution,
it shows that the registry receipt of the correspondence (Registered
Letter No. RD 919035686ZZ) which was returned to sender or to the
Office of the Ombudsman corresponds to the registry receipt used to
send a copy of the Assailed Resolution to Petitioner (Registered Letter
No. RD 919035686ZZ)

Page 13 of 25
 22. The foregoing clearly shows that Public Respondents Sumido,
Evangelista and Agbada failed to send a copy of the Assailed Resolution
to Petitioner in violation of the OMB Rules.

(2) Such failure of the Office of the

Ombudsman, through the Public
Respondents Sumido, Evangelista
and Agbada, to send a copy of the
Assailed Resolution to Petitioner
violated her right to due process.

23. Such failure Public Respondents Sumido, Evangelista and

Agbada results to the consequent failure of Petitioner to avail of her
rights under Section 7, Rule II of the OMB Rules to file a motion for a
reconsideration:

Section 7. Motion for reconsideration - a) Only one motion for

reconsideration or reinvestigation of an approved order or
resolution shall be allowed, the same to be filled within five
(5) days from notice thereof with the Office of the
Ombudsman, or the proper Deputy Ombudsman as the
case may be, with corresponding leave of court in cases
where information has already been filed in court;
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

24. Based on the above, Petitioner, could have filed (a) a motion
for reconsideration against the Assailed Resolution and (b) a motion for
leave before the courts were the Informations were filed.

25. It should be emphasized that Petitioner was not able to avail

of these remedies under the OMB Rules because of the evident failure of
Public Respondents Sumido, Evangelista and Agbada to execute and
implement the provisions of the OMB Rules.

26. The inability of Petitioner to avail of these remedies, through

no fault of her own, severely violated her right to due process. Petitioner
Page 14 of 25
was suddenly served with Warrants of Arrest and was arrested without
even knowing that the Office of the Ombudsman has already issued the
Assailed Resolution.

27. Petitioner was deprived of the available legal remedies under

the OMB Rules, without any fault on her, because she did not receive a
copy of the Assailed Resolution.

28. In depriving her of such right, the concurrent purposes of a

preliminary investigation were not properly carried out in violation of the
right to due process. This Honorable Supreme court, in In the matter of
the Petition for Habeas Corpus Meliton C. Geronimo,11 (the
“Geronimo Case”) held that:

The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to

secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and
oppressive prosecution, and to protect him from an
open and public accusation of crime, from the
trouble, expense and anxiety of a public trial, and
also to protect the state from useless and expensive
trials. (Trocio v. Manta, 118 SCRA 241; citing Hashim v.
Boncan, 71 Phil. 216). The right to a preliminary
investigation is a statutory grant, and to withhold it
would be to transgress constitutional due process.
(See People v. Oandasan, 25 SCRA 277) However, in
order to satisfy the due process clause it is not enough
that the preliminary investigation is conducted in the
sense of making sure that a transgressor shall not
escape with impunity. A preliminary investigation
serves not only the purposes of the State. More
important, it is a part of the guarantees of freedom
and fair play which are birth rights of all who live in
our country. It is, therefore, imperative upon the fiscal
or the judge as the case may be, to relieve the accused
from the pain of going through a trial once it is
ascertained that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a
prima facie case or that no probable cause exists to
form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused
xxx. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

29. This above is further confirmed in Duterte et. al v. The

Honorable Sandiganbayan12 (the “Duterte Case”) provides that:

11
G.R. No. L-60504, 14 May 1985.
12
G.R. No. 130191, 27 April 1998.

Page 15 of 25
 A preliminary investigation, on the other hand, takes on
an adversarial quality and an entirely different
procedure comes into play. This must be so because
the purpose of a preliminary investigation or a
previous inquiry of some kind, before an accused
person is placed on trial, is to secure the innocent
against hasty, malicious and oppressive
prosecution, and to protect him from an open and
public accusation of a crime, from the trouble,
expenses and anxiety of public trial. It is also
intended to protect the state from having to conduct
useless and expensive trials. While the right is statutory
rather than constitutional in its fundament, it is a
component part of due process in criminal justice. The
right to have a preliminary investigation conducted
before being bound over to trial for a criminal
offense and hence formally at risk of incarceration
or some other penalty, is not a mere formal or
technical right; it is a substantive right. To deny the
accused's claim to a preliminary investigation would
be to deprive him of the full measure of his right to
due process. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

30. As discussed in the Geronimo Case and the Duterte Case,

the purpose of a preliminary investigation is to “secure the innocent
against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, and to protect him
from an open and public accusation of a crime, from the trouble,
expenses and anxiety of public trial.” More importantly, the Supreme
Court explained that the right to a preliminary investigation is not a
mere formal or technical right, but a substantive right, and “to
withhold it would be to transgress constitutional due process.”

31. Petitioner has dutifully served this government as a

Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Gattaran, Cagayan, from
September 2007 to December 2019 for twelve (12) whole years.

32. After these years of service, she was in fact cleared of all
obligations and was allowed to retire. However, instead of living the rest
of her life in peace, she is being unjustifiably accused of offenses without
any supporting evidence and is being deprived of her rights under the
laws and relevant regulations.

33. It is truly disheartening to realize that Petitioner could have

availed of the remaining legal remedies under the law to further explain
and defend herself against the allegations. However, through no fault of

Page 16 of 25
her own, Petitioner was unduly and unjustifiably deprived of this basic
right under the OMB Rules, thus, violating her right to due process.

C. THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT

ERRED IN ALLEGING THE PROCEDURAL
LAPSES AGAINST IN THE PETITION.

34. According to the Assailed Order, Petitioner failed to pay the

docket/legal fees “as the attached postal money orders were returned to
sender for being stale”. This is erroneous.

34.1. First, it is respectfully submitted that the Petition was

filed on September 17, 2021. During such filing, Petitioner paid the
docket/legal fees through attachment of the original Postal Money
Orders (“Original PMO”) which were purchased on even date of
filing:

Page 17 of 25
 34.2. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that it is not
Petitioner’s fault that the Petition was only given due course seven
(7) months from the time of filing. Had the Petition been opened
and given due course without lapse of so many months, the
Original PMOs would not have gotten stale.

34.3. Second, upon instructions in a letter from the Judicial

Records Office of this Honorable Court dated March 22, 2022 that
Petitioner received on March 12, 2022,13 Petitioner duly filed a
Manifestation on March 15, 2022 attaching the new PMOs to
replace the Original PMOs (“New PMO”).14

13
A copy of the Letter dated 22 February 2022 is attached herein as Annex “B”.
14
A copy of the Manifestation with the New PMOs are herein attached as Annex “C”.

Page 18 of 25
 34.4. Third, as proof of payment, Petitioner received on May 21,
2022, a copy of the official receipt issued by this Honorable Court as
proof of payment of the docket/legal fees:15

34.5. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that the allegation of

Petitioner’s failure to pay the docket/legal fees has no basis.

35. According to the Assailed Order, Petitioner failed to attach a

clearly legible original or a certified true copy of the Assailed Resolution.
This is erroneous.

35.1. First, Petitioner did not timely received any copy of the
original Assailed Resolution.

15
A copy of the Official Receipt No. 327186 is attached herein as Annex “D”.

Page 19 of 25
 35.2. Given this, Petitioner has to file a request with the
Office of the Ombudsman to secure a certified true copy of the
Assailed Resolution.
35.3. Second, it is respectfully submitted that a certified true
copy of the Assailed Resolution was attached to the Petition as
Annex “A” therein.

36. According to the Assailed Order, Petitioner failed to attach a

valid affidavit of service. This is erroneous.

36.1. It is respectfully submitted that a perusal of the Petition

shows that Petitioner attached a valid affidavit of service to the
Public Respondents and of filing to this Honorable Court.

37. According to the Assailed Order, Petitioner failed to provide a

proper verification with additional attestations and a valid certification
with a properly accomplished jurat.

37.1. However, it is respectfully submitted that these are

inadvertent oversight on the part of the Petitioner.

37.2. As a layman, Petitioner inadvertently missed the

revisions of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure which directs
additional attestations in a verificaton.

37.3. Likewise, the lack of properly accomplished jurat is

also a mere inadvertent oversight considering that the Verified
Declaration signed and notarized on the same day, that is attached
to the Petition, contained the proper form of jurat.

37.4. As such, Petitioner seeks the indulgence of this

Honorable Court to look past these matters inadvertent oversight
as to the form of the Verification and Certification Against Non-
Forum Shopping dated September 17, 2021.

37.5. As provided in Zarsona Medical Clinic v. Philippines

Health Insurance Corporation,16 these requirements are not
jurisdictional and may be thus, be cured by subsequent correction
or submission:

In Lim v. The Court of Appeals, Mindanao Station, we

reiterated that the requirements of verification and
certification against forum shopping are not jurisdictional.
Verification is required to secure an assurance that the
allegations in the petition have been made in good faith or are
16
G.R. No. 191225, 13 October 2014.

Page 20 of 25
 true and correct, and not merely speculative. Non-compliance
with the verification requirement does not necessarily render
the pleading fatally defective, and is substantially complied
with when signed by one who has ample knowledge of the
truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition, and when
matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith
orare true and correct. On the other hand, the certification
against forum shopping is required based on the principle
that a party-litigantshould not be allowed to pursue
simultaneous remedies in different fora. While the
certification requirement is obligatory, non-compliance or a
defect in the certificate could be cured by its subsequent
correction or submission under special circumstances or
compelling reasons, or on the ground of "substantial
compliance."

37.6. Thus, Petitioner hereby submits to this Honorable

Court an original and notarized Verification and Certification
Against Non-Forum Shopping dated May 30, 2022 to rectify the
previous one that was attached to the Petition.

D. ASSUMING, WITHOUT ADMITTING, THAT

THERE ARE PROCEDURAL LAPSES TO
THE PETITION, THE GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN THE ISSUANCE AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ASSAILED
RESOLUTION HAVE UNJUSTLY
PREJUDICED PETITIONER, WHICH
WARRANTS THE RELAXATION OF
PROCEDURAL RULES.

38. Assuming, without admitting, that the Petition contains

procedural lapses, the grave abuse of discretion in the issuance and
implementation of the Assailed Resolution has unjustly prejudiced
Petitioner, which warrants the relaxation of procedural rules.

39. Petitioner has exhaustively discussed the numerous actions

of the Public Respondents proving grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction. These actions cannot be deemed
excusable negligence on the part of the Public Respondents but are grave
mistakes that have impinged the Petitioner’s right to due process.

Page 21 of 25
 40. Public Respondents actions affected the just and speedy
determination of the Petitioner’s alleged liability and, therefore, warrants
the relaxation of procedural rules in favor of the latter.

41. This Honorable Court, in Commissioner of Internal

Revenue v. Symmetry Philippines, Inc.,17 ruled in favor of the liberal
interpretation of the rules to better serve the interest of substantial
justice.

Considering the foregoing, this Court applies a more

liberal interpretation of the Rules of Court in order
to better serve the interest of substantial justice,
and to allow the just determination of the present
controversy on its merits, rather than on the grounds
of strict technicality. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied.)

24. In Barnes v. Padilla,18 the Honorable Supreme Court held

that the rules must not be applied so rigidly so as not to override
substantial justice.

In the assailed decision, indeed, the Court upheld the

general rule that the filing of a motion for extension of
time to file a motion for reconsideration in the CA does
not toll the fifteen-day period to appeal,
citing Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. vs. Japson. However,
we suspended this rule in order to serve substantial
justice in accordance with Ginete vs. Court of
Appeals and Sanchez vs. Court of Appeals.

xxx

In the Sanchez case, the Court restated the range of

reasons which may provide justification for a court
to resist a strict adherence to procedure,
enumerating the elements for an appeal to be given due
course by a suspension of procedural rules, such as: (a)
matters of life, liberty, honor or property; (b) the
existence of special or compelling circumstances, (c) the
merits of the case, (d) a cause not entirely attributable
to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the
suspension of the rules, (e) a lack of any showing that
17
CTA EB Case No. 1276 (CTA Case No. 8324), 2 November 2015.
18
G.R. No. 160753, 28 June 2005.

Page 22 of 25
 the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and
(f) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced
thereby. Elements or circumstances (a), (d), (e) and (f)
exist in the present case. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied.)
|||
25. The foregoing shows that all the elements or circumstances
are present in this case:

a. First, Petitioner risks being deprived of life,

liberty, or property without being afforded due process.
Should this Honorable Court deny the Petition, Petitioner
stands to lost her life, liberty, or property without due process
of law as provided under the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

b. Second, Public Respondents’ actions in the

issuance of the Assailed Resolution and its implementation
gravely violated Petitioner’s right to due process.

c. Third, the merits of the case (i.e. lack of sufficient

evidence to prove a prima facie finding of probable cause)
renders the Assailed Resolution invalid.

d. Fourth, the fact that Petitioner failed to timely

receive a copy of the Assailed Resolution is due to the
negligence of the Public Respondents.

e. Fifth, the Petitioner has sufficiently shown the

merits that warrant the relaxation of procedural rules, and the
same is not frivolous and dilatory.

f. Sixth, Public Respondents will not be unjustly

prejudiced thereby because ab initio, the Assailed Resolution
should not have been for lack of probable cause and should
not have been implemented without Petitioner exercising her
right under the OMB Rules which is included in her right to
due process.

26. Given the above, there is unjust prejudice to the Petitioner

caused by the Public Respondents’ actions in the conduct of the
assessment that warrants the relaxation of procedural rules.

PRAYER

Page 23 of 25
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed
that this Honorable Court RECONSIDER its Assailed Order dated March
16, 2022, and thereafter, SET ASIDE and REVERSE the Office of the
Ombudsman’s Assailed Resolution dated February 10, 2022, and to
ISSUE a TRO and ORDER the dismissal the criminal complaints against
the Petitioner.

Tuguegarao City for Manila, Philippines this 30th day of March,

2022.

ANNA TURARAY GAMMAD

Petitioner
No. 04 Sampaguita Street, San Gabriel Village, Tuguegarao City,
Cagayan Valley 3500
Email address ana.gammad27@gmail.com

Copy furnished Registry Receipt No./Courier No.

Carlo F. Evangelista

Graft Investigation and RR. No. ________________________

Prosecution Officer I
Ombudsman Building, Agham
Road,Diliman,Quezon City 1104
Adoracion A. Agbada

Preliminary Investigation, RR. No. ________________________

Administrative
Adjudication and Prosecution
Bureau
Ombudsman Building, Agham
Road, Diliman, Quezon City 1104
Hon. Cornelio L. Sumido

Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon RR. No. ________________________

Ombudsman Building, Agham
Road, Diliman, Quezon City 1104

STATE AUDITOR IV BERNARDO RR. No. ________________________

P. LLAPITAN
STATE AUDITOR III ERICKSON RR. No. ________________________
G. ZORILLA
STATE AUDITOR III KRISKA RR. No. ________________________
ALELI D. UTRELA

Page 24 of 25
STATE AUDITOR I LOUISE D. RR. No. ________________________
TUSCANO
STATE AUDITOR I JAHNEEN M. RR. No. ________________________
BATTUNG-MERDEGIA
Commissioner on Audit
Regional Office No. II
Regional Government Center
Carig Sur, Tuguegarao City,
Cagayan 3500

EXPLANATION

Unless otherwise personally served and filed, the foregoing was

served and filed by registered mail due to the distances involved and the
restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Anna T. Gammad

Page 25 of 25