GR 156399; (June, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 156399-400; June 27, 2008
VICTOR JOSE TAN UY, petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SANDIGANBAYAN (SPECIAL DIVISION), CARLOS S. CAACBAY OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ROMEO T. CAPULONG, LEONARD DE VERA, AND DENNIS B. FUNA, respondents.
FACTS
The Ombudsman filed a Plunder case against former President Joseph Estrada and several others, including a “John Doe a.k.a. Eleuterio Tan or Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy,” for allegedly conspiring to divert tobacco excise tax funds. During the trial, the Ombudsman filed an Omnibus Motion before the Sandiganbayan seeking a warrant of arrest for Victor Jose Tan Uy, alleging he was the same person as the “John Doe” in the Information, identified through photographs from the Senate impeachment trial. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion and issued a warrant. Petitioner Tan Uy then filed a motion to quash the warrant and to defer proceedings before the Ombudsman, arguing the Ombudsman lost jurisdiction once the case was filed in court and that he was denied due process as he was not afforded a preliminary investigation.
The Ombudsman denied Tan Uy’s motion, asserting it retained authority to conduct a preliminary investigation to determine his identity as the accused “John Doe.” The Ombudsman reasoned that the filing of the Information against a “John Doe” did not preclude a subsequent investigation to ascertain his true name, and that the Sandiganbayan’s issuance of the warrant constituted a judicial determination of probable cause against him. Tan Uy filed the present petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to quash the warrant and to defer proceedings, despite having filed the Information in court and the Sandiganbayan having issued a warrant.
RULING
No, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that the Ombudsman retains the authority to conduct a preliminary investigation for the purpose of establishing the identity of an accused charged under a fictitious name. The filing of an Information against a “John Doe” does not terminate the Ombudsman’s investigatory power; it is a necessary continuation to name the real party. The Court clarified that the Sandiganbayan’s issuance of a warrant of arrest was a judicial finding of probable cause specifically against “John Doe a.k.a. Eleuterio Tan,” not against petitioner Victor Jose Tan Uy by name. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s proceeding to determine if Tan Uy was indeed that “John Doe” was a valid exercise of its mandate and did not violate due process, as he was given the opportunity to be heard and present countervailing evidence. The petition was dismissed.