G.R. No. 247824 - People vs. Padilla

On 25 November 2013, the Office of the Ombudsman served Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada with complaint OMB-C-C-13-0313, filed by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and Atty. Levito D. Baligod, praying for prosecution for Plunder under Republic Act (RA) 7080; Estrada filed his counter-affidavit on 9 January 2014.
On 3 December 2013, the Ombudsman served Estrada with complaint OMB-C-C-13-0397, filed by its Field Investigation Office (FIO), praying for prosecution for Plunder under RA 7080 and violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019; Estrada filed his counter-affidavit on 16 January 2014.

Between 9 December 2013 and 14 March 2014, eighteen of Estrada’s co-respondents filed individual counter-affidavits.
Media reports indicated that several affidavits referred to Estrada’s conduct, prompting concern over full disclosure of evidence.

On 20 March 2014, Estrada filed a “Request to be Furnished with Copies of Counter-Affidavits of the Other Respondents, Affidavits of New Witnesses and Other Filings,” invoking:

Rule 112, Sec. 3(b), Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (“right to examine evidence submitted by the complainant which he may not have been furnished”); and
AO 7, Rule II, Sec. 4(c), Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman (“respondent shall have access to the evidence on record”).

He specifically requested the affidavits of co-respondents Ruby Tuason, Dennis Cunanan, Gondelina Amata, Mario Relampagos, a consolidated NBI reply (if any), and all other respondents’ filings.

On 27 March 2014, via Order OMB-C-C-13-0313, the Ombudsman denied Estrada’s Request, holding that neither the Rules of Court nor the Ombudsman’s rules entitle a respondent to co-respondents’ filings, limiting rights to the complainant’s evidence.
On 28 March 2014, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution in OMB-C-C-13-0313 and OMB-C-13-0397 finding probable cause to indict Estrada with one count of Plunder and eleven counts of violation of Sec. 3(e), RA 3019.
Estrada filed a motion for reconsideration of the Joint Resolution on 7 April 2014.

On 7 May 2014, the Ombudsman furnished Estrada with seven of the requested counter-affidavits, directing him to comment within five days.
On 15 May and 3 June 2014, the Ombudsman denied motions to suspend proceedings and to reconsider its Order.
On 4 June 2014, the Ombudsman denied Estrada’s motion for reconsideration of the 28 March 2014 Joint Resolution.
On 6 June 2014, the Ombudsman filed Informations against Estrada before the Sandiganbayan (SB-14-CRM-0239 and SB-14-CRM-0256 to SB-14-CRM-0266). Estrada’s petition for certiorari remained pending before the Supreme Court.

Whether the Ombudsman, in denying Estrada’s 20 March 2014 Request for co-respondents’ affidavits and filings, acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion violating Estrada’s right to due process.
Whether Estrada’s petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is premature or barred by the availability of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy (motion for reconsideration).
Whether Estrada’s concurrent remedies (petition for certiorari and motion for reconsideration) constitute forum shopping.