GR 156851; (February, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 156851-55; February 18, 2008
HEIDE M. ESTANDARTE, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Heide M. Estandarte, a school principal, was the subject of complaints filed with the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas. The Ombudsman forwarded one complaint to the City Prosecutor for preliminary investigation. The subpoena did not specify the criminal charges. Petitioner filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars. The City Prosecutor then issued an Order attaching a Bill of Particulars from the private complainants, which stated they were charging petitioner with violations of Sections 68 and 69 of P.D. No. 1445 (the Government Auditing Code). Petitioner filed her counter-affidavit addressing only those specified charges.
Subsequently, the Ombudsman-Visayas, after receiving the case back, found probable cause and filed five Informations before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) charging petitioner with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), not P.D. No. 1445. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reinvestigation before the RTC, arguing she was denied due process as the Ombudsman went beyond the charges in the Bill of Particulars. The RTC denied her motion and subsequent motion for reconsideration, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner was denied due process when the Ombudsman filed Informations for violation of R.A. No. 3019 , a crime not specified in the Bill of Particulars furnished to her during the preliminary investigation.
RULING
No, the petitioner was not denied due process. The Supreme Court held that a preliminary investigation is not a trial on the merits and its purpose is merely to determine whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty. The Bill of Particulars requested by and furnished to the petitioner pertained to the complaint filed with the City Prosecutor. However, the authority to determine probable cause and file the corresponding Information rests with the Ombudsman, who is not bound by the findings or the specific legal characterization of the charges by the City Prosecutor or the private complainants.
The legal logic is that the Ombudsman has the constitutional and statutory mandate to investigate and prosecute public officials. In exercising this power, the Ombudsman is not confined to the specific statutes alleged by the complainants but can assess the facts and determine the appropriate crime based on the evidence gathered. The petitioner was given the opportunity to answer the basic factual allegations during the investigation. The shift from a charge under P.D. No. 1445 to R.A. No. 3019 did not violate due process because both laws relate to the conduct of public officers, and the factual basis for the charges—her alleged irregular financial transactions as principal—remained substantially the same. The ultimate determination of the precise crime and the existence of “manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence” under R.A. No. 3019 is a matter of evidence best adjudicated in a full trial.