Estrada VS Ombusdman

ESTRADA VS OMBUSDMAN
FACTS
-25 November 2013, the Ombudsman served upon Sen. Estrada a copy of the
complaint filed by the NBI and Atty. Baligod, which prayed, that criminal proceedings
for Plunder be conducted against Sen. Estrada. He filed his counter affidavit 9 January
2014.
Subsequently 3 December 2013, the Ombudsman served upon Sen. Estrada a copy of
the complaint in OMB-C-C-13-0397, 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. Estrada’s co-respondents in the two complaints filed their counter-
affidavits
Then in March 2014 he Sen. Estrada filed his Request to be Furnished with Copies of
Counter-Affidavits of the Other Respondents, Affidavits of New Witnesses and Other
Filings.
(a) Affidavit of [co-respondent] Ruby Tuason (Tuason);
(b) Affidavit of [co-respondent] Dennis L. Cunanan (Cunanan);
(c) Counter-Affidavit of [co-respondent] Gondelina G. Amata (Amata);
(d) Counter-Affidavit of [co-respondent] Mario L. Relampagos (Relampagos);
(e) Consolidated Reply of complainant NBI, if one had been filed; and
(f) Affidavits/Counter-Affidavits/Pleadings/Filings filed by all the other respondents

and/or additional witnesses for the Complainants.
Sen. Estrada’s request was made "[p]ursuant to the right of a respondent ‘to
examine the evidence submitted by the complainant which he may not have
been furnished’ (Section 3[b], Rule 112 of the Rules of Court) and to ‘have access to
the evidence on record’ (Section 4[c], Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of
the Ombudsman).
DENIED- The office found that the cited provisions do not entitle respondent [Sen.
Estrada]to be furnished all the filings of the respondents. noted that there is no
provision under this Office’s Rules of Procedure which entitles respondent to be
furnished all the filings by the other parties, e.g. the respondents. Ruby Tuason, Dennis
Cunanan, Gondelina G. Amata and Mario L. Relampagos themselves are all respondents
in these cases. Under the Rules of Court as well as the Rules of Procedure of the Office
of the Ombudsman, the respondents are only required to furnish their counter-affidavits
and controverting evidence to the complainant, and not to the other respondents.
Subsequently the ombudsman issues a joint reso which found probable cause to indict
Estrada and othe co respondents with plunder.
ISSUE AND ARGUMENTS RAISED IS PETITIONER DENIED DUE PROCESS?
Sen. Estrada claims that the denial of his Request for the counter affidavits of his co-
respondents 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 co-respondents.
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. Estrada’s 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 co-respondents. Obviously, the counter-affidavits of the co-
respondents are not part of the supporting affidavits of the complainant. No grave
abuse of discretion can thus be attributed to the Ombudsman for the issuance of the 27
March 2014 Order which denied Sen. Estrada’s Request.
Although Section 4(c), Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
Ombudsman provides that a respondent "shall have access to the evidence on record,"
this provision should be construed in relation to Section 4(a) and (b) of the same Rule,
as well as to the Rules of Criminal Procedure. First, Section 4(a) states that
"theinvestigating officer shall require the complainant or supporting witnesses to
execute affidavits to substantiate the complaint." The "supporting witnesses" are the
witnesses of the complainant, and do not refer to the co-respondents.
Second, Section 4(b) states that "the investigating officer shall issue an order attaching
thereto a copy of the affidavits and all other supporting documents, directing the
respondent" tosubmit his counter-affidavit. The affidavits referred to in Section 4(b) are
the affidavits mentioned in Section
Section 3(b), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that "[t]he
respondent shall have the right to examine the evidence submitted by the complainant
which he may not have been furnished and to copy them at his expense." A
respondent’s right to examine refers only to "the evidence submitted by the
complainant." Thus, whether under Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
or under Rule II of the Ombudsman’s Rules of Procedure, there is no requirement
whatsoever that the affidavits executed by the correspondents should be furnished to a
respondent.
Sen. Estrada’s 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 co-respondents during the pre-
trial or even during the trial.
It is a fundamental principle that the accused in a preliminary investigation has no right

to cross-examine 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 counter-affidavit, 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.
Second, 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.” Thus, the rights of a respondent in a preliminary investigation
are limited to those granted by procedural law.
A preliminary investigation is defined as an inquiry or proceeding for the purpose of

determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a
crime cognizable by the Regional Trial Court has been committed and that the
respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. The quantum of
evidence now required in preliminary investigation is such evidence sufficient to
“engender a well-founded belief” as to the fact of the commission of a crime and the
respondent’s probable guilt thereof. A preliminary investigation is not the occasion for
the full and exhaustive display of the parties’ evidence; it is for the presentation of such
evidence only as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been
committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. We are in accord with the
state prosecutor’s findings in the case at bar that there exists prima facie evidence of
petitioner’s involvement in the commission of the crime, it being sufficiently supported
by the evidence presented and the facts obtaining therein

Estrada VS Ombusdman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estrada VS Ombusdman

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estrada VS Ombusdman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ESTRADA VS OMBUSDMAN

(a) Affidavit of [co-respondent] Ruby Tuason (Tuason);

(b) Affidavit of [co-respondent] Dennis L. Cunanan (Cunanan);

(c) Counter-Affidavit of [co-respondent] Gondelina G. Amata (Amata);

(d) Counter-Affidavit of [co-respondent] Mario L. Relampagos (Relampagos);

(f) Affidavits/Counter-Affidavits/Pleadings/Filings filed by all the other respondents

ISSUE AND ARGUMENTS RAISED IS PETITIONER DENIED DUE PROCESS?

It is a fundamental principle that the accused in a preliminary investigation has no right

Second, it should be underscored that the conduct of a preliminary investigation is only

A preliminary investigation is defined as an inquiry or proceeding for the purpose of

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.