G.R. No. 159190; June 30, 2005
CAYETANO A. TEJANO, JR., petitioner, vs. THE HON. OMBUDSMAN and the HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a 1992 report on an alleged irregular unfunded withdrawal of P2.2 million from a V&G Better Homes account at PNB Cebu, where petitioner Cayetano A. Tejano, Jr. was Vice President and Branch Manager. After preliminary investigation, an Information for violation of R.A. No. 3019, Sec. 3(e) was filed against Tejano before the Sandiganbayan in 1994. The court granted a reinvestigation, which was assigned to Special Prosecutor Jesus Micael. In 1999, Micael recommended dismissal for lack of probable cause, a recommendation approved by his superiors.
Ombudsman Aniano Desierto, however, disapproved Micael’s recommendation with a marginal note to assign the case to another prosecutor. Tejano filed a motion for reconsideration. In 2003, the Ombudsman, through a memorandum by Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio, denied Tejano’s motion. Villa-Ignacio’s memorandum was approved by Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo, who had succeeded Desierto.

ISSUE

Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in disapproving the reinvestigation recommendation and in the subsequent denial of the motion for reconsideration, thereby violating petitioner’s right to due process.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court found a violation of due process in the Ombudsman’s disapproval of the reinvestigation report. The legal logic centers on the requirement of an impartial review. Ombudsman Desierto, who disapproved the dismissal recommendation, had previously participated in the initial preliminary investigation stage as the then-Special Prosecutor, concurring in the earlier resolution to file the information. His subsequent act of disapproving the contrary recommendation from a reinvestigation he ordered created a situation where he was essentially reviewing his own prior decision.
This scenario breached the fundamental rule that no man shall be a judge in his own cause. Due process demands not only an impartial tribunal but also the appearance of impartiality throughout the proceedings. The infirmity was not cured by the fact that a later Ombudsman, Marcelo, denied the motion for reconsideration based on a memorandum from another prosecutor. The taint of partiality originated at the critical point of disapproval, negating Tejano’s right to a fair and impartial review from the outset. Consequently, the Ombudsman’s acts were set aside, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.