Case Summary (G.R. No. 260374)
Statutory and Procedural Framework
Under Rule 112, RRCrimP, a respondent in preliminary investigation has the right to examine evidence submitted by the complainant, to copy it at his expense, and to submit a counter-affidavit. Section 4, AO 7 extends to respondents “access to the evidence on record,” refers to complainant-executed affidavits and supporting documents, and prescribes counter-affidavits within ten days. Co-respondents’ affidavits are not expressly mentioned as petitioner’s right.
Ombudsman’s Denial of Request (Mar 27 2014)
The Ombudsman held that statutory rules grant the respondent only the right to receive the complaint and its attachment of affidavits by complainant and supporting witnesses—not to receive all co-respondents’ filings. Petitioner’s request was therefore denied, although the Ombudsman noted petitioner was entitled to any consolidated reply by the NBI, of which there was none.
Joint Resolution Finding Probable Cause (Mar 28 2014)
The next day, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution in both docketed investigations, finding probable cause to indict petitioner and co-respondents with Plunder and multiple graft counts. The Resolution relied in part on co-respondents’ affidavits not previously furnished to petitioner.
Rule 65 Petition and Partial Compliance (May 7 2014)
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari (Rule 65) on May 7 2014, asking the Supreme Court to void the March 27 2014 denial and subsequent proceedings for lack of due process. On the same date, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Order furnishing petitioner with copies of seven co-respondents’ affidavits and directing a five-day comment period. Petitioner did not file comments.
Issue: Due Process in Preliminary Investigation
Petitioner contends the Ombudsman’s denial of his Request violated his constitutional right to due process—specifically his right to be informed of and respond to all evidence against him—because the Ombudsman relied on undisclosed co-respondents’ affidavits in finding probable cause.
Analysis of Due Process Rights
Constitutional due process (Art. III, secs. 1, 2, 12, 14) guarantees notice and an opportunity to be heard once a person is under investigation or prosecution. However, the right to preliminary investigation is statutory, not constitutional; it is a component of due process, designed to secure the innocent against hasty or malicious prosecution and to prevent useless trials. Respondent’s rights in preliminary investigation are limited to those granted by law—examining and copying complainant’s affidavits and materials, submitting counter-affidavits, and accessing “evidence on record,” which by statute refers only to complainant-submitted affidavits and documents.
No Statutory Right to Co-respondents’ Affidavits
Neither Rule 112 of the Rules of Court nor AO 7 gives a respondent the right to be furnished with all co-respondents’ affidavits. The Ombudsman fully complied with statutory procedure by providing petitioner with the complaint and its supporting documents. The subsequent partial compliance of May 7 2014 went beyond legal requirements.
Rule 65 Remedy, Mootness, and Forum Shopping
Petitioner’s Rule 65 petition is proper because no adequate re
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 260374)
Background and Factual Context
- Two preliminary investigations were opened by the Office of the Ombudsman:
• OMB-C-C-13-0313 (NBI and Atty. Baligod complaint for Plunder under RA 7080)
• OMB-C-C-13-0397 (Ombudsman FIO complaint for Plunder under RA 7080 and violation of Sec. 3(e), RA 3019) - Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada (Sen. Estrada) received, and filed counter-affidavits to, both complaints on January 8 and 16, 2014.
- Eighteen co-respondents filed their own counter-affidavits between December 9, 2013 and March 14, 2014.
- Sen. Estrada, learning that his co-respondents’ affidavits allegedly implicated him, filed on March 20, 2014 a Request to be furnished copies of co-respondents’ affidavits and related filings.
First Ombudsman Order: Denial of Request
- On March 27, 2014, the Ombudsman denied Sen. Estrada’s Request.
- Ground: Rules of Court and Ombudsman’s own Rules require furnishing only complainants’ affidavits to respondents—no mandate to furnish co-respondents’ filings.
- Sen. Estrada was served with the Denial Order on April 1, 2014.
Ombudsman Probable Cause Resolution
- On March 28, 2014, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause to indict Sen. Estrada and co-respondents with one count of Plunder and eleven counts of graft (Sec. 3[e], RA 3019).
- Resolution relied in part on co-respondents’ affidavits that Sen. Estrada had not received.
Petition and Procedural Posture
- April 7, 2014: Sen. Estrada filed a motion for reconsideration of the March 28 Joint Resolution.
- May 7, 2014: Sen. Estrada filed a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the March 27 Denial Order as grave abuse of discretion and due process violation; prayed for TRO/injunction and declaration of nullity of that Order and subsequent proceedings.
- Same day, the Ombudsman partially complied by furnishing seven co-respondents’ affidavits and gave Sen. Estrada