Estrada v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al.

,
G.R Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015
Cites in ABS-CBN Corporation v. Gozon, G.R. No. 195956, March 11, 2015
Facts:
On 2013, the Ombudsman served upon Sen. Estrada two complaints which prayed that criminal
proceedings for Plunder be conducted against Sen. Estrada.
Eighteen of Sen. Estrada’s co-respondents in the two complaints filed their counter-affidavits
between 9 December 2013 and 14 March 2014.5
On 20 March 2014, Sen. Estrada filed his Request to be furnished with Copies of Counter-
Affidavits of the Other Respondents. Sen. Estrada’s request was made "pursuant 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 Estrada’s request during the preliminary investigation.
Issues:
Whether or not there was a violation to Estrada’s right to due process upon denial of his request
during a preliminary investigation.
Ruling:
The Ombudsman’s denial of Sen. Estrada’s Request did not violate his 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.
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 only.
Furthermore, upon reconsideration, the Ombudsman even went beyond legal duty and even
furnished Sen. Estrada with copies of the counter-affidavits of his co-respondents and granted
Sen. Estrada five days from receipt of Joint Order to formally respond to the claims made by his
co-respondents.
In Sen. Estrada’s Petition, the denial of his Request happened during the preliminary
investigation where the only issue is the existence of probable cause for the purpose of
determining whether an information should be filed, and does not prevent Sen. Estrada from
requesting a copy of the counter-affidavits of his co-respondents during the pre-trial or even
during the trial.