Case Digest (G.R. No. 156399-400)
Facts:
Victor Jose Tan Uy v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 156399-400, June 27, 2008, the Supreme Court En Banc, Brion, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners and respondents are centered on Victor Jose Tan Uy (petitioner) and the Office of the Ombudsman (respondent), with the People of the Philippines, the Sandiganbayan (Special Division) and several complainants/actors in the underlying investigations (including Carlos S. Caacbay, Romeo T. Capulong, Leonard De Vera, and Dennis B. Funa) appearing in the records. The Ombudsman filed Informations on April 4, 2001, charging former President Joseph E. Estrada and others with Plunder in cases originating from OMB-0-00-1720 and OMB-0-00-1756, later docketed as Sandiganbayan Crim. Case No. 26558; the Amended Information named an Eleuterio Tan (a.k.a. Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy) among those implicated.
During the course of the Sandiganbayan proceedings the Ombudsman moved (8 January and 5 March 2002 filings) to amend the Information to insert the name VICTOR JOSE TAN UY and sought a warrant of arrest, alleging that identification evidence (including photographs and the sworn statement of Ma. Caridad Manahan-Rodenas produced in a Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) investigation) established that the petitioner was the same person as the Eleuterio Tan named in the complaints. The petitioner responded at the Ombudsman by filing a Petition to Conduct Preliminary Investigation, contending he was never a subject of the initial preliminary investigations, was not served with subpoenas, and had taken steps to disprove any mistaken identity (including a separate civil action in the RTC of Cebu and a handwriting examination).
The Sandiganbayan, however, granted the petitioner's motion on June 19, 2002 and ordered the Ombudsman to conduct a preliminary investigation specifically as to the petitioner, and to hold in abeyance the Ombudsman’s motion to amend the Information and to seek a warrant of arrest against him until completion of that investigation. In compliance, the Ombudsman required the petitioner to file a counter-affidavit and scheduled a clarificatory hearing to confront Rodenas, whose FFIB statement and identification documents the Ombudsman regarded as critical to linking the petitioner to the aliases. The petitioner filed a counter-affidavit denying identification and alleging lack of probable cause; he did not attend the clarificatory hearing and Rodenas likewise failed to appear.
On September 13, 2002, the Ombudsman issued an order finding probable cause to charge the petitioner before the Sandiganbayan, principally relying on Rodenas’s identification and the FFIB identification documents, and on October 16, 2002 it denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. The petitioner then filed a petition under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court in the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion and lack or excess of jurisdictio...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Ombudsman commit grave abuse of discretion or act without or in excess of jurisdiction when it found probable cause to charge petitioner Victor Jose Tan Uy and denied his motion for reconsideration?
- Was the Ombudsman’s reliance on identification documents and FFIB materials that were not disclosed to petitioner during the Sandiganbayan-ordered preliminary investigation violative of petitioner’s right to due process and f...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)