Case Digest (G.R. No. 235937-40)
Facts:
Johanne Edward B. Labay v. Sandiganbayan, Third Division, and People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 235937-40, July 23, 2018, Supreme Court Third Division, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.
The Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office I filed a complaint on May 11, 2015 (OMB‑C‑C‑15‑0152) against then‑Representative Marc Douglas C. Cagas IV and several co‑respondents, including Johanne Edward B. Labay (petitioner), alleging anomalies in the utilization of PDAF funds and charging malversation, falsification and violations of R.A. No. 3019. The Ombudsman’s September 1, 2015 Joint Order directed respondents to file counter‑affidavits, but that order could not be served on petitioner at his last known office and residential addresses; the Ombudsman proceeded with the preliminary investigation based on the evidence on record.
On May 10, 2016 the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict petitioner and others. Petitioner claims he first learned of the charges in October 2016 when his daughter discovered Ombudsman press releases mentioning him; through his daughter he requested records and on October 10, 2016 the Ombudsman furnished him with its May 10, 2016 Resolution and advised him to file a motion for reconsideration within five days.
Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion for Reinvestigation on November 16, 2016, asserting he had not been furnished the complaint‑affidavit and supporting documents and therefore was denied an effective opportunity to defend; the Ombudsman denied that motion (Nov. 25, 2016) and later denied his reconsideration (Feb. 1, 2017). The Ombudsman nonetheless filed four Informations with the Sandiganbayan on March 24, 2017; petitioner received copies of the complaint‑affidavit and supporting evidence only on March 28, 2017 and the Informations on April 4, 2017. He immediately moved in the Sandiganbayan for reinvestigation and deferment of filing of Informations.
The Sandiganbayan, Third Division denied petitioner’s motion for reinvestigation in a Resolution dated July 10, 2017 (finding probable cause and ordering warrants of arrest) and denied his motion for partial reconsideration in a Resolution dated October 19, 2017. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with this Court seeking annulment of the Sandiganbayan resolutions, remand for reinvestigation, suspension of criminal proceedings against him, and issuance of injunctive relief.
This Court issued a t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied petitioner Labay’s motion for reinvestigation?
- Was petitioner Labay deprived of his constitutional right to due process by the Ombudsman’s failure to furnish him a copy of the complaint‑affidavit and supporting documents during th...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)