G.R. No. 212140 -41, January 21, 2015
SENATOR JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA, Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, Office of the Ombudsman, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and ATTY. LEVITO D. BALIGOD, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada was a respondent in two complaints for Plunder and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act filed before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB-C-C-13-0313 and OMB-C-C-13-0397). After filing his counter-affidavits, Sen. Estrada filed a “Request to be Furnished with Copies of Counter-Affidavits of the Other Respondents, Affidavits of New Witnesses and Other Filings” on March 20, 2014. He invoked his right under Section 3(b), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court and Section 4(c), Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman. On March 27, 2014, the Ombudsman issued an Order denying his Request, ruling that the rules do not entitle a respondent to be furnished all filings by other respondents, only requiring respondents to furnish their counter-affidavits to the complainant. The Ombudsman stated Sen. Estrada was only entitled to be furnished a copy of the complaint and its supporting affidavits and documents, which had been complied with, and to a copy of the complainant’s Reply if filed. On March 28, 2014, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause to indict Sen. Estrada. Without filing a motion for reconsideration of the March 27 Order, Sen. Estrada filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the Order and claiming denial of due process. Subsequently, on May 7, 2014, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Order furnishing Sen. Estrada with the counter-affidavits of several co-respondents and directing him to comment.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Order dated March 27, 2014, denying Sen. Estrada’s request for copies of his co-respondents’ counter-affidavits, thereby violating his constitutional right to due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. The Court held that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent for the filing of a petition for certiorari, and Sen. Estrada’s failure to file one rendered his petition procedurally infirm. The Court found no compelling reason to excuse this non-compliance. On the substantive issue, the Court ruled that a respondent in a preliminary investigation has no right to examine the affidavits and documents submitted by his co-respondents. The right under Section 3(b), Rule 112 is limited to examining evidence submitted by the complainant. The Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman similarly do not grant a respondent the right to be furnished copies of co-respondents’ counter-affidavits; the duty to furnish is only to the complainant. The Court emphasized that a preliminary investigation is not a trial and the rights of the respondent are statutory, not constitutional. Due process in a preliminary investigation only requires that the respondent be informed of the complaint and the supporting evidence and be given an opportunity to submit his counter-affidavit. The Ombudsman’s subsequent act of furnishing the counter-affidavits and directing Sen. Estrada to comment also rendered the petition moot and academic. Furthermore, the Court noted that Sen. Estrada had filed a petition for certiorari (G.R. Nos. 212761-62) assailing the Ombudsman’s Joint Resolution finding probable cause, which raised the same due process issue, making the present petition dismissible on the ground of litis pendentia.