People v. Labay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A complaint was filed by the Field Investigation Office I (FIO I) of the Office of the Ombudsman against petitioner Johanne Edward B. Labay for alleged anomalous utilization of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of former Representative Marc Douglas C. Cagas IV. The charges included violations of Article 217 (Malversation), Article 171 (Falsification), and Section 3(a) and (e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, as amended. The complaint alleged that Rep. Cagas IV, in conspiracy with others including petitioner Labay, facilitated the release of Php6,000,000.00 of PDAF to Farmer-business Development Corporation (FDC), led by petitioner Labay, but the projects were allegedly never implemented ('ghost projects'). Procedural History: The Ombudsman attempted to serve a Joint Order dated September 1, 2015, directing respondents to file counter-affidavits, on petitioner Labay, but the copies were returned unserved as he was no longer employed at his last known office and unknown at his residential address. Consequently, the Ombudsman proceeded with the preliminary investigation without petitioner's participation. On May 10, 2016, the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict petitioner and others. Petitioner learned of the charges in October 2016 through press releases. His daughter, Atty. Jo Blanca P.B. Labay, requested information and was furnished a copy of the May 10, 2016 Resolution, with a directive to file a motion for reconsideration within five days. Petitioner, through his daughter, filed an Omnibus Motion for Reinvestigation and Deferment of Filing of Information, arguing lack of notice and opportunity to present defense. The Ombudsman denied this motion on November 25, 2016, stating that diligent efforts were made to serve the order and that the filing of the motion cured any defect in due process. Petitioner filed a second Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration, reiterating his arguments. The Ombudsman denied this as a second motion for reconsideration on February 1, 2017. On March 24, 2017, the Ombudsman filed four Informations before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner was only furnished a copy of the Complaint-Affidavit and supporting evidence on March 28, 2017, four days after the Informations were filed. He then filed an Extremely Urgent Motion with the Sandiganbayan for reinvestigation, arguing wrongful filing without affording him his right to a complete preliminary investigation. The Sandiganbayan denied this motion on July 10, 2017, ruling that petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity to be heard by filing two motions with the Ombudsman. A motion for partial reconsideration was also denied on October 19, 2017. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion by denying him his constitutional right to due process, as he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard due to the Ombudsman's failure to furnish him with a copy of the complaint affidavit and its attachments, thus preventing him from effectively presenting his defense.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner Labay's motion for reinvestigation, and whether petitioner Labay was deprived of his constitutional right to due process.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Supreme Court annulled and set aside the Resolutions dated July 10, 2017 and October 19, 2017 issued by the Sandiganbayan, Third Division, and ordered the Office of the Special Prosecutor to file motions to withdraw the Informations in the aforedescribed criminal cases.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and violation of due process: The Supreme Court found that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court held that the petitioner's constitutional right to due process was violated because he was not furnished a copy of the complaint affidavit and its attachments during the preliminary investigation. This prevented him from effectively and intelligently presenting his defense or moving for reconsideration of the Ombudsman's resolution. The Court emphasized that a preliminary investigation is a substantive right meant to protect the innocent against hasty and oppressive prosecution. The Ombudsman's failure to serve the initial order for counter-affidavit was admitted, and while it proceeded based on available evidence, the situation changed when the petitioner actively sought information. At that point, the Ombudsman had an opportunity to furnish the complaint affidavit and supporting documents but instead only provided the resolution. The Court disagreed with the Sandiganbayan's conclusion that filing two motions with the Ombudsman constituted sufficient opportunity to be heard, especially since the petitioner had not yet seen the complaint affidavit. The Court reiterated that suppression of evidence, or in this case, the withholding of the complaint affidavit and supporting documents, violates due process rights. The Court cited Duterte v. Sandiganbayan where a case was dismissed for failure to sufficiently apprise the accused of the charges during preliminary investigation, noting that the current case involved a more severe deprivation of the right to know the accusations.
Main Doctrine
The Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the petitioner's motion for reinvestigation, as his constitutional right to due process was violated when he was not furnished a copy of the complaint affidavit and its attachments during the preliminary investigation, thereby preventing him from effectively presenting his defense.