G.R. No. 102420 December 20, 1994
PROSPERO A. OLIVAS, petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN-AFP), and ATTY. BIENVENIDO C. BLANCAFLOR, in his capacity as Ombudsman Investigator, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Major Gen. Prospero A. Olivas was investigated for alleged unexplained wealth. The AFP Anti-Graft Board, created by the PCGG, initially recommended the provisional dismissal of the case for lack of prima facie evidence and officially informed Olivas he was cleared. The PCGG disapproved this and continued the investigation. The case was later endorsed to the Office of the Ombudsman. During the Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation, the respondent investigator issued an order requiring Olivas to submit his counter-affidavit and his witnesses’ affidavits. Olivas resisted, arguing that the PCGG, as the complainant, had not first submitted its sworn complaint and supporting affidavits and documents. He contended that without a proper complaint initiating the proceeding, there was no legal basis to compel him to present his evidence.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Ombudsman can compel a respondent to submit counter-affidavits during a preliminary investigation when no sworn complaint or supporting affidavits from the complainant have yet been filed.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner and annulled the Ombudsman’s order. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental requirements of a preliminary investigation and the respondent’s right to due process. A preliminary investigation is an inquiry to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty. The Rules of Court governing preliminary investigations mandate that the investigation proceeds only after a complaint is filed. The respondent’s right to submit counter-evidence is contingent upon being informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. To require Olivas to present his defense without first being furnished the sworn statements and documents upon which the charge is based would be to compel him to guess the accusations and prematurely disclose his defense. This violates his constitutional right to be informed of the charges and to due process. The Court emphasized that the Ombudsman’s constitutional power to act on complaints “in any form or manner” refers to the initiation of an inquiry or motu proprio investigation, not to dispensing with the basic procedural requisites of a preliminary investigation once it has commenced. Therefore, the Ombudsman must first ensure the submission of the complainant’s evidence before requiring the respondent’s counter-affidavit.