Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 219 views

    Roxas v. Vasquez

    Uploaded by

    Francis Coronel Jr.
    The Supreme Court ruled that Manuel Roxas and Ahmed Nacpil's constitutional rights were violated when the Special Prosecutor reinstated complaints against them in a criminal case without their knowledge. Roxas and Nacpil were chair and member, respectively, of a bids committee that was investigating discrepancies in fire truck bids. While the Ombudsman initially filed a complaint, the Special Prosecutor later dismissed charges against Roxas and Nacpil. However, without notifying them, the Special Prosecutor then reinstated the complaints. The Supreme Court found this deprived Roxas and Nacpil of their due process right to defend themselves.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Roxas v. Vasquez

    Uploaded by

    Francis Coronel Jr.
    219 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that Manuel Roxas and Ahmed Nacpil's constitutional rights were violated when the Special Prosecutor reinstated complaints against them in a criminal case without their knowledge. Roxas and Nacpil were chair and member, respectively, of a bids committee that was investigating discrepancies in fire truck bids. While the Ombudsman initially filed a complaint, the Special Prosecutor later dismissed charges against Roxas and Nacpil. However, without notifying them, the Special Prosecutor then reinstated the complaints. The Supreme Court found this deprived Roxas and Nacpil of their due process right to defend themselves.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    10. Roxas v. Vasquez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Manuel Roxas and Ahmed Nacpil's constitutional rights were violated when the Special Prosecutor reinstated complaints against them in a criminal case without their knowledge. Roxas and Nacpil were chair and member, respectively, of a bids committee that was investigating discrepancies in fire truck bids. While the Ombudsman initially filed a complaint, the Special Prosecutor later dismissed charges against Roxas and Nacpil. However, without notifying them, the Special Prosecutor then reinstated the complaints. The Supreme Court found this deprived Roxas and Nacpil of their due process right to defend themselves.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    219 views1 page

    Roxas v. Vasquez

    Uploaded by

    Francis Coronel Jr.
    The Supreme Court ruled that Manuel Roxas and Ahmed Nacpil's constitutional rights were violated when the Special Prosecutor reinstated complaints against them in a criminal case without their knowledge. Roxas and Nacpil were chair and member, respectively, of a bids committee that was investigating discrepancies in fire truck bids. While the Ombudsman initially filed a complaint, the Special Prosecutor later dismissed charges against Roxas and Nacpil. However, without notifying them, the Special Prosecutor then reinstated the complaints. The Supreme Court found this deprived Roxas and Nacpil of their due process right to defend themselves.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    ROXAS v.

    VASQUEZ

    FACT: Manuel C. Roxas was the Chairman, while Ahmed S. Nacpil was a Member, of the Bids and
    Awards Committee of the PC-INP who invited bids for the supply of sixty-five units of fire trucks. The
    Commission on Audit subsequently discovered that while the disbursement voucher indicated the bid
    price has discrepancy.

    Consequently, DILG Secretary filed a complaint with the Ombudsman for violation of Section 3 (e) of
    Republic Act No. 3019 against the accused. On review, the Office of the Special Prosecutor
    recommended the dismissal of the complaints against the petitioner. However, the Special Prosecutor
    made a sudden turnabout as regards to the petitioner and ordered their inclusion as accused in a Criminal
    Case. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration.

    The Review Committee of the Office of the Special Prosecutor recommended that the Motion for
    Reconsideration be granted and that the charge against the movants be dismissed. However, Deputy
    Special Prosecutor disapproved the recommendation.

    Thus, Petitioner filed with the Supreme Court the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to
    annul the orders of the Ombudsman directing their inclusion as accused in Criminal Case.

    ISSUE: Whether the petitioners were deprived of due process when the Special Prosecutor reinstated the
    complaint against them without their knowledge

    RULING: Yes. The Supreme Court find that the case at falls under one of the recognized exceptions to
    this rule, more specifically, the constitutional rights of the accused are impaired and the charges are
    manifestly false.

    In cases where the Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor were unable to agree on whether or not
    probable cause exists, we may interfere with the findings and conclusions. The petitioners were deprived
    of due process when the Special Prosecutor reinstated the complaint against them without their
    knowledge.

    Due process of law requires that every litigant must be given an opportunity to be heard. He has the right
    to be present and defend himself in person at every stage of the proceedings. For all intents and
    purposes, therefore, petitioners were no longer parties in the criminal action. Evidently, the Office of the
    Special Prosecutor thought so too.

    It did not give petitioners notice of the reinvestigation, which would have enabled them to participate in the
    proceedings. But when it later found probable cause against petitioners, it should have first given them
    notice and afforded them an opportunity to be heard before ordering their inclusion in Criminal Case.

    You might also like