2 Estrada V Omb Case Digest L

ESTRADA V OMB
GR 212140, Jan 21, 2015
Recit-Ready Case Summary: Sometime in November and December 2013, the Ombudsman served on Sen. Estrada two
(2) criminal complaints for plunder, among others. Eighteen (18) of Sen. Estrada’s co-respondents in the two complaints
filed their counter-affidavits between 9 December 2013 and 14 March 2014.
On 20 March 2014, Sen. Estrada filed his “Request to be Furnished with Copies of Counter-Affidavits of the Other
Respondents, Affidavits of New Witnesses and Other Filings” (the “Request”). Sen. Estrada’s request was made
“[p]ursuant to the right of a respondent ‘to examine the evidence submitted by the complainant which he may not have
been furnished’ (Section 3[b], Rule 112 of the Rules of Court) and to ‘have access to the evidence on record’ (Section
4[c], Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman).” The Ombudsman denied Sen. Estrada’s
Request, which is not the subject of the present certiorari case.
FACTS: Sometime in November and December 2013, the Ombudsman served on Sen. Estrada two (2) criminal
complaints for plunder, among others. Eighteen (18) of Sen. Estrada’s co-respondents in the two complaints filed their
counter-affidavits between 9 December 2013 and 14 March 2014.
On 20 March 2014, Sen. Estrada filed his “Request to be Furnished with Copies of Counter-Affidavits of the Other
Respondents, Affidavits of New Witnesses and Other Filings” (the “Request”). Sen. Estrada’s request was made
“[p]ursuant to the right of a respondent ‘to examine the evidence submitted by the complainant which he may not have
been furnished’ (Section 3[b], Rule 112 of the Rules of Court) and to ‘have access to the evidence on record’ (Section
4[c], Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman).” The Ombudsman denied Sen. Estrada’s
Request, which is not the subject of the present certiorari case.
ISSUE: WON petitioner Estrada was denied due process of law
HELD: NO. The denial did not violate Sen. Estrada’s constitutional right to due process.
There is no law or rule which requires the Ombudsman to furnish a respondent with copies of the counter-affidavits of his
co-respondents.
The SC cited in its decision Sections 3 and 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as well as Rule II of
Administrative Order No. 7, Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, for ready reference.
Sen. Estrada claims that the denial of his Request for the counter-affidavits of his co-respondents violates his
constitutional right to due process. Sen. Estrada, however, fails to specify a law or rule which states that it is a compulsory
requirement of due process in a preliminary investigation that the Ombudsman furnish a respondent with the counter-
affidavits of his co-respondents. Neither Section 3(b), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure nor Section
4(c), Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman supports Sen. Estrada’s claim. What the Rules of
Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman require is for the Ombudsman to furnish the respondent with a copy of the
complaint and the supporting affidavits and documents at the time the order to submit the counter-affidavit is issued to the
respondent. This is clear from Section 4(b), Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman when it
states, "[a]fter such affidavits [of the complainant and his witnesses] have been secured, the investigating officer shall
issue an order, attaching thereto a copy of the affidavits and other supporting documents, directing the respondent to
submit, within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, his counter-affidavits x x x." At this point, there is still no counter-affidavit
submitted by any respondent. Clearly, what Section 4(b) refers to are affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, not
the affidavits of the co-respondents. Obviously, the counter-affidavits of the co-respondents are not part of the supporting
affidavits of the complainant. No grave abuse of discretion can thus be attributed to the Ombudsman for the issuance of
the 27 March 2014 Order which denied Sen. Estrada’s Request.
The Ombudsman faithfully complied with the existing Rules on preliminary investigation and even accommodated Sen.
Estrada beyond what the Rules required. Thus, the Ombudsman could not be faulted with grave abuse of discretion.
Since this is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, the Petition fails in the absence of grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the Ombudsman. Thus, petition is dismissed for being premature and it constitutes forum shopping.
1
SUBJECT - Name
2
SUBJECT - Name

2 Estrada V Omb Case Digest L

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 Estrada V Omb Case Digest L

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 Estrada V Omb Case Digest L

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ESTRADA V OMB

GR 212140, Jan 21, 2015

ISSUE: WON petitioner Estrada was denied due process of law

You might also like