Case: Senator Jinggo Estrada vs. Ombusdman
Facts:
The Ombudsman served upon Sen. Estrada a copy of the complaint in OMB-C-C-130313, filed by the NBI and Atty. Baligod which prayed, among others, that criminal
proceedings for Plunder as defined in RA No. 7080 be conducted against Sen.
Estrada.
The Ombudsman served upon Sen. Estrada a copy of the complaint in OMB-C-C-130397, filed by the FIO of the Ombudsman, which prayed, among others, that criminal
proceedings for Plunder, as defined in RA No. 7080, and for violation of Section 3(e)
of RA No. 3019, be conducted against Sen. Estrada. Eighteen of Sen. EstradaÊs
corespondents in the two complaints filed their counter-affidavits between 9
December 2013 and 14 March 2014.
Sen. Estrada filed his Request to beFurnished with Copies of Counter-Affidavits of the
Other Respondents, Affidavits of New Witnesses and Other Filings (Request) in OMBC-C-13-0313. The Ombudsman issued the assailed Order in OMB-C-C-13-0313
which reads, This Office finds however finds [sic] that the foregoing provisions [pertaining to
Section 3[b], Rule 112 of the Rules of Court and Section 4[c], Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the
Office of the Ombudsman] do not entitle respondent [Sen. Estrada] to be furnished all the filings of
the respondents
Senator Estrada challenged said order of the Ombudsman for violating his right of due process. On
the same date, 7 May 2014, the Ombudsman issued in OMB-C-C-13-0313 and OMB-C-C-13-0397 a
Joint Order furnishing Sen. Estrada with the counter-affidavits of Tuason, Cunanan, Amata,
Relampagos, Francisco Figura, Gregoria Buenaventura, and Alexis Sevidal, and directing him to
comment thereon within a non-extendible period of five days from receipt of the order. As of 2 June
2014, the date of filing of the OmbudsmanÊs Comment to the present Petition, Sen. Estrada had not
filed a comment on the counteraffidavits furnished to him.
Senator Estrada maintained that his right of due process was violated he was not given copies of
counter-affidavits of other complainants.
Issue.
Whether Senator Estrada’s was denied of due process.
Ruling:
The court ruled in negative. First. There is no law or rule which requires the Ombudsman to furnish
a respondent with copies of the counter-affidavits of his correspondents. Sen. Estrada claims that
the denial of his Request for the counter-affidavits of his corespondents violates his constitutional
right to due process. Sen. Estrada, however, fails to specify a law or rule which states that it is a
compulsory requirement of due process in a preliminary investigation that the Ombudsman furnish
a respondent with the counter-affidavits of his corespondents. Neither Section 3(b), Rule 112 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure nor Section 4(c), Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the Office
of the Ombudsman supports Sen. EstradaÊs claim.
What the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman require is for the Ombudsman to
furnish the respondent with a copy of the complaint and the supporting affidavits and documents at
the time the order to submit the counter-affidavit is issued to the respondent. Clearly, what Section
4(b) refers to are affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, not the affidavits of the
corespondents.
Thus, whether under Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure or under Rule
II of the OmbudsmanÊs Rules of Procedure, there is no requirement whatsoever that
the affidavits executed by the corespondents should be furnished to a respondent.
In Sen. EstradaÊs Petition, the denial of his Request happened during the preliminary
investigation where the only issue is the existence of probable cause for the purpose of
determining whether an information should be filed, and does not prevent Sen. Estrada
from requesting a copy of the counter-affidavits of his corespondents during the pretrial
or even during the trial.
It should be underscored that the conduct of a preliminary investigation is only for the
determination of probable cause, and „probable cause merely implies probability of
guilt and should be determined in a summary manner. A preliminary investigation is not
a part of the trial and it is only in a trial where an accused can demand the full exercise
of his rights, such as the right to confront and cross-examine his accusers to establish his
innocence.‰18 Thus, the rights of a respondent in a preliminary investigation are limited
to those granted by procedural law.
It is a fundamental principle that the accused in a preliminary investigation has no right to crossexamine the witnesses which the complainant may present. Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court
expressly provides that the respondent shall only have the right to submit a counteraffidavit, to
examine all other evidence submitted by the complainant and, where the fiscal sets a hearing to
propound clarificatory questions to the parties or their witnesses, to be afforded an opportunity to be
present but without the right to examine or cross-examine
We likewise take exception to Justice BrionÊs assertion that „the due process standards
that at the very least should be considered in the conduct of a preliminary
investigation are those that this Court first articulated in Ang Tibay v. Court of
Industrial Relations [Ang Tibay].
Summary (page 69)