Olivas v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner, Major Gen. Prospero A. Olivas, was investigated for unexplained wealth under Republic Act No. 1379 and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019). Anonymous letters were sent to the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), leading to a freeze and hold order on petitioner's accounts. The AFP Anti-Graft Board initially recommended the provisional dismissal of the case due to insufficient evidence. However, the PCGG disapproved this and ordered a review. Subsequent fiscal recommendations to affirm the dismissal were also seemingly disapproved, leading to further subpoenas and orders for petitioner to explain certain financial details. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a motion for clarification and dismissal, arguing that no sworn complaint or affidavits had been filed against him, and questioning the PCGG's jurisdiction. This motion was denied. After the case was indorsed to the Office of the Ombudsman, petitioner received a subpoena ordering him to submit his affidavit and those of his witnesses, citing a reinvestigation showing failure to file income tax returns for certain years, which increased the alleged unexplained wealth. Petitioner requested copies of the complaint and the basis for the figures to file a counter-affidavit. On October 25, 1991, the Ombudsman Investigator issued an order directing petitioner to submit his counter-affidavit and supporting affidavits within five days, otherwise the case would be resolved based on available evidence. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, assailing the Ombudsman Investigator's order as grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, for compelling him to submit a counter-affidavit in the absence of a sworn complaint and affidavits of witnesses against him.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Deputy Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in compelling the petitioner to submit his counter-affidavit in the absence of a sworn complaint and affidavits of witnesses against him; specifically, whether a sworn complaint is a mandatory requirement for the conduct of a preliminary investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The questioned order dated October 25, 1991, is set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether a sworn complaint is a mandatory requirement for the conduct of a preliminary investigation, and whether compelling the petitioner to submit a counter-affidavit in the absence of such a complaint constitutes grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court held that a sworn complaint and supporting affidavits from the complainant are mandatory requirements before a respondent can be compelled to submit a counter-affidavit and other supporting documents in a preliminary investigation. The Court emphasized that while complaints can be in any form for the initial stages of investigation, once the proceedings become adversary and aim to prosecute, the procedure outlined in Rule II, Section 4(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman applies. This rule mandates that the investigating officer must require the complainant or supporting witnesses to execute affidavits to substantiate the complaint before directing the respondent to submit counter-affidavits. The Court reiterated the principle established in Cojuangco, Jr. v. PCGG that a law enforcer who conducted the criminal investigation and filed the complaint cannot conduct the preliminary investigation of his own complaint, as it is arbitrary and unjust. The Court clarified that this requirement applies not only to graft cases under Republic Act No. 3019 but also to actions for the recovery of unexplained wealth under Republic Act No. 1379, as Section 2 of the latter law requires a previous inquiry similar to a preliminary investigation. The Court concluded that the PCGG, as the complainant in this case, must embody its evidence in affidavits or sworn statements before petitioner can be compelled to submit his evidence. This requirement is not only procedural but also a matter of due process in adversary proceedings, ensuring that investigations are not used for harassment.
Main Doctrine
A preliminary investigation cannot be compelled from a respondent in the absence of a sworn complaint and supporting affidavits from the complainant, as this is a requirement of due process and the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman.