Estrada v. Bersamin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada (Sen. Estrada) was charged with Plunder and violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 in two separate preliminary investigations before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB-C-C-13-0313 and OMB-C-C-13-0397). Procedural History: Sen. Estrada filed his counter-affidavits in both cases. Subsequently, he filed a request to be furnished with copies of the counter-affidavits of his co-respondents and other filings, citing his right to examine evidence submitted by the complainant and to have access to evidence on record. The Ombudsman denied this request via an Order dated March 27, 2014, stating that no rule entitled him to be furnished with filings by other respondents. The following day, March 28, 2014, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause to indict Sen. Estrada and others for plunder and graft charges. Sen. Estrada received both issuances on April 1, 2014. He filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Joint Resolution on April 7, 2014, but did not file a motion for reconsideration of the March 27, 2014 Order denying his request. Instead, on May 7, 2014, he filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the March 27, 2014 Order and claiming denial of due process. On the same day, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Order furnishing Sen. Estrada with copies of some of the requested counter-affidavits and directing him to comment within five days. The Ombudsman later denied Sen. Estrada's motion for reconsideration of the March 28, 2014 Joint Resolution on June 4, 2014. Informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan on June 6, 2014. The Petition: Sen. Estrada filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion and violated his constitutional right to due process by denying his request for copies of his co-respondents' affidavits. He contended that this denial prevented him from fully refuting the allegations against him, which were used by the Ombudsman in finding probable cause. He sought to annul the Ombudsman's March 27, 2014 Order and all subsequent proceedings affected by it, and prayed for a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in denying Sen. Estrada's request to be furnished with copies of his co-respondents' counter-affidavits. Whether the denial of the request violated Sen. Estrada's constitutional right to due process. Whether the Petition for Certiorari was premature due to the failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman's March 27, 2014 Order. Whether Sen. Estrada's petition constituted forum shopping.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari. It held that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion and that Sen. Estrada's right to due process was not violated. The Court found the petition to be premature and constituting forum shopping.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in denying Sen. Estrada's request to be furnished with copies of his co-respondents' counter-affidavits: The Court ruled that there is no law or rule requiring the Ombudsman to furnish a respondent with copies of the counter-affidavits of his co-respondents. Sections 3(b) of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and Section 4(c) of Rule II of the Ombudsman's Rules of Procedure, when read together, only grant a respondent the right to examine evidence submitted by the complainant. The phrase "access to the evidence on record" refers to the complainant's evidence, not the evidence of co-respondents. Therefore, the Ombudsman's denial of the request was in accordance with the existing rules, and no grave abuse of discretion was committed. The Court distinguished this from administrative cases where different standards apply. On Whether the denial of the request violated Sen. Estrada's constitutional right to due process: The Court held that the denial did not violate Sen. Estrada's constitutional right to due process. The Court reiterated that the rights of a respondent in a preliminary investigation are statutory, not constitutional, and are limited to those granted by procedural law. A preliminary investigation is merely for the determination of probable cause and is not part of the trial where full exercise of rights like confrontation and cross-examination is demanded. The Court emphasized that the standards of due process in administrative cases, as enumerated in Ang Tibay, do not apply to preliminary investigations because these investigations are executive functions aimed at determining probable cause, not adjudicating rights with finality. Applying Ang Tibay would require substantial evidence, which is a higher standard than the 'likelihood or probability of guilt' needed for probable cause. On Whether the Petition for Certiorari was premature due to the failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman's March 27, 2014 Order: The Court found the petition to be premature. Sen. Estrada failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman's March 27, 2014 Order denying his request, which is a mandatory prerequisite before filing a petition for certiorari, unless an exception applies. The Court noted that Sen. Estrada immediately filed the certiorari petition without exhausting available remedies with the Ombudsman. Although the Ombudsman later furnished some documents and held in abeyance the resolution of his motion for reconsideration of the probable cause finding, this did not cure the procedural defect of failing to seek reconsideration of the specific order being assailed in the certiorari petition. On Whether Sen. Estrada's petition constituted forum shopping: The Court determined that Sen. Estrada engaged in forum shopping. He filed the present petition for certiorari while his motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman's probable cause finding was still pending. The Court found that Sen. Estrada raised the same issue of denial of due process in both his motion for reconsideration and his petition for certiorari. Resorting to simultaneous remedies, particularly when a motion for reconsideration of the assailed order was still pending, constitutes forum shopping, which warrants the outright dismissal of the petition.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court clarified that a respondent in a preliminary investigation has no statutory or constitutional right to be furnished copies of the counter-affidavits of co-respondents. The right to examine evidence is limited to evidence submitted by the complainant. Furthermore, the Court held that alleged procedural irregularities in a preliminary investigation do not affect the jurisdiction of the court that has already acquired it through the filing of the information, and that such irregularities do not automatically render subsequent court proceedings void.