65 - Jinggoy Estrada v. Office of The Ombudsman

Jinggoy Estrada v.
Office of the Ombudsman

January 21, 2015 | CARPIO, J
Admissions & Confessions; Res Inter Alios Acta
Doctrine: Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by
an act, declaration or omission of another." In OMB-C-C-13-0313 and OMB-C-C-13- 0397, the
admissions of Sen. Estrada's co-respondents can in no way prejudice Sen. Estrada.
Case Summary: The Field Investigation Office of the OMB filed a complaint before the OMB against
Petitioner Jinggoy Estrado for violation of Sec. 3e of RA 3019 and RA 7080. Issue here is WON the OMB
committed grave abuse of discretion in denying his request to be furnished with counter-affidavits of his
co-respondents. SC held NO. In relation to the syllabus, Justice Velasco dissents to the decision of the
majority. Justice Velasco opines that a respondent in a preliminary investigation cannot be denied copies
of the counter-affidavits of his co-respondents should they contain evidence that will likely incriminate him
for the crimes charged. Justice Carpio’s ruling in the main decision in response to Justice Velasco’s
dissent states: Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced
by an act, declaration or omission of another.
Facts:
 The Field Investigation Office of the OMB filed a complaint before the OMB against Petitioner Jinggoy
Estrado for violation of Sec. 3e of RA 3019 and RA 7080.
 Petitioner (respondent in the OMB level) Estrada requested that they be furnished with the copies of the
counter-affidavits of his co-respondents and that of the other witnesses. The OMB denied the request
and held that Rule 112 sec. 3b does not entitle him to copies of said documents. The Rule only requires
that the respondent is given a copy of the complaint and the affidavits of the complainant’s witnesses.
Nowhere is there a provision requiring the respondent be furnished with copies of his co-respondents.
 The OMB found probable cause to indict petition of said charges but without filing a MR in the OMB, a
rule 65 was filed before the SC assailing the decision of the OMB with respect to the denial of his
request for the filings of his co-respondents.
 After said petition was filed, the OMB furnished Estrada with the counter-affidavits of his respondents
and asked him to file a comment thereon. Nevertheless, Estrada sought to have the proceedings in the
OMB suspended in view of his rule 65 petition in the SC,
 The OMB denied his motion to suspend proceedings.
Issue: WON the OMB committed grave abuse of discretion in denying his request to be furnished with
counter-affidavits of his co-respondents? NO
Ruling:
 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.
 It should be underscored that the conduct of a preliminary investigation is only for the determination of
probable cause, and "probable cause merely implies probability of guilt and should be determined in a
summary manner. A preliminary investigation is not a part of the trial and it is only in a trial where an
accused can demand the full exercise of his rights, such as the right to confront and cross-examine his
accusers to establish his innocence." Thus, the rights of a respondent in a preliminary investigation are
limited to those granted by procedural law.
Relevant Portion to the syllabus

(The following is the ponente’s response to the dissent of Justice Velasco)
 For reference this is Justice Velasco’s dissent wherein he states that a respondent in a preliminary
investigation be furnished with the counter-affidavits of his co-respondents:
A respondent in a preliminary investigation cannot, therefore, be denied copies of the counter-affidavits
of his co-respondents should they contain evidence that will likely incriminate him for the crimes
charged. In other words, it behooves the office of the Ombudsman to treat a respondent's counter-
affidavit containing incriminating allegations against a co-respondent as partaking the nature of a
complaint-affidavit, insofar as the implicated respondent is concerned.
 Justice Carpio’s ruling in the main decision in response to Justice Velasco’s dissent:
Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration or omission of another." In OMB-C-C-13-0313 and OMB-C-C-13- 0397, the admissions of
Sen. Estrada's co-respondents can in no way prejudice Sen. Estrada. Even granting Justice Velasco's
argument that the 28 March 2014 Joint Resolution in OMB-C-C-13-0313 and OMB-C-C-13-0397
mentioned the testimonies of Sen. Estrada's co-respondents like Tuason and Cunanan, their
testimonies were merely corroborative of the testimonies of complainants' witnesses Benhur Luy,
Marina Sula, and Merlina Suñas and were not mentioned in isolation from the testimonies of
complainants' witnesses.
Disposition: WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the Petition for Certiorari in G.R. Nos. 212140-41.
SO ORDERED.
Notes:

65 - Jinggoy Estrada v. Office of The Ombudsman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

65 - Jinggoy Estrada v. Office of The Ombudsman

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

65 - Jinggoy Estrada v. Office of The Ombudsman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jinggoy Estrada v.

Office of the Ombudsman

Relevant Portion to the syllabus

You might also like