DUE PROCESS CASES DIGESTS

GILDA G. CRUZ and ZENAIDA C. PAITIM, petitioner, vs. duties and functions of the office. This is, however, not the scenario contemplated
THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent. in the case at bar. It must be noted that the acts complained of arose from a
Petitioners Zenaida Paitim, Municipal Treasurer of Norzagaray, Bulacan and cheating caused by the petitioners in the Civil Service (Subprofessional)
Gilda Cruz were charged with dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct examination. The examinations were under the direct control and supervision of
prejudicial to the best interest of the service after a fact-finding investigation the Civil Service Commission. The culprits are government employees over
disclosed that Paitim impersonated Gilda Cruz in the non-professional career whom the Civil Service Commission undeniably has jurisdiction. Thus, after the
civil service examinations conducted on July 30, 1989 in Quezon City. Petitioners petitioners were duly investigated and ascertained whether they were indeed
denied the charges against them, declared that they were electing a formal guilty of dishonesty, the penalty meted was dismissal from the office. Section 28,
investigation on the matter and subsequently moved to dismiss on the ground of Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations explicitly provides
denial of due process because the Civil Service Commission (CSC) was the that the CSC can rightfully take cognizance over any irregularities or anomalies
complainant, the prosecutor and the judge, all at the same time. The motion was connected to the examinations.
denied. The CSC, in a resolution dated July 1, 1998, found petitioners guilty as The fact that the complaint was filed by the CSC itself does not mean that it could
charged and ordered their dismissal from the government service. Petitioners not be an impartial judge. As an administrative body, its decision was based on
elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review which was, substantial findings. Factual findings of administrative bodies, being considered
however, dismissed. Their subsequent motion for reconsideration was also experts in their field, are binding on the Supreme Court.
denied. Hence, this recourse. It cannot be denied that the petitioners were formally charged after a finding that
The Civil Service Commission is vested with the appellate jurisdiction in all a prima facie case for dishonesty lies against them. They were properly informed
administrative cases where the penalty imposed is removal or dismissal from of the charges. They submitted an Answer and were given the opportunity to
office and where the complaint was filed by a private citizen. This appellate defend themselves. Petitioners cannot, therefore, claim that there was a denial of
jurisdiction does not contemplate a case where the acts complained of was due process much less the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the CSC to take
committed against the Commission itself as when the employee committed cognizance of the case. We do not find reversible error with the decision of the
irregularity or anomaly in the conduct of its examinations. Court of Appeals in upholding the CSC Resolution.
Factual findings of administrative bodies like the Civil Service Commission, if EVELIO B. JAVIER, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON
supported by substantial evidence, are binding on this Court. ELECTIONS, and ARTURO F. PACIFICADOR, respondents.
There is no denial of administrative due process where after being formally Javier and Pacificador, a member of the KBL under Marcos, were rivals to be
charged, respondents submitted their answer and given opportunity to defend members of the Batasan in May 1984 in Antique. During election, Javier
themselves. complained of “massive terrorism, intimidation, duress, vote-buying, fraud,
Petitioners maintain that the CSC did not have original jurisdiction to hear and tampering and falsification of election returns under duress, threat and
decide the administrative case. Allegedly, in accordance with Section 47(1), intimidation, snatching of ballot boxes perpetrated by the armed men of
Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Title 1, Book V, Administrative Code of 1987, the CSC is Pacificador.” COMELEC just referred the complaints to the AFP. On the same
vested with appellate jurisdiction only in all administrative cases where the complaint, the 2nd Division of the Commission on Elections directed the
penalty imposed is removal or dismissal from the office and where the complaint provincial board of canvassers of Antique to proceed with the canvass but to
was filed by a private citizen against the government employee. Petitioners' suspend the proclamation of the winning candidate until further orders. On June
invocation of the law is misplaced. The provision is applicable to instances where 7, 1984, the same 2nd Division ordered the board to immediately convene and to
administrative cases are filed against erring employees in connection with their proclaim the winner without prejudice to the outcome of the case before the
 DUE PROCESS CASES DIGESTS

Commission. On certiorari before the SC, the proclamation made by the board of MARCELINO C.
canvassers was set aside as premature, having been made before the lapse of the LIBANAN, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and
5-day period of appeal, which the Javier had seasonably made. Javier pointed out AGUSTIN B. DOCENA, respondents.
that the irregularities of the election must first be resolved before proclaiming a FACTS:
winner. Further, Opinion, one of the Commissioners should inhibit himself as he
was a former law partner of Pacificador. Also, the proclamation was made by Petitioner Libanan is the incumbent vice-governor of Eastern Samar and was a
only the 2ndDivision but the Constitute requires that it be proclaimed by the former member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan prior to the 1992 elections.
COMELEC en banc. In Feb 1986, during pendency, Javier was gunned down. The
Solicitor General then moved to have the petition close it being moot and He was charged in conspiring to other members to prevent and exclude Docena
academic by virtue of Javier’s death. (Respondent), a qualified replacement of a deceased member, from exercising his
ISSUE: Whether or not there had been due process in the proclamation of rights and prerogatives as a member of the said body.
Pacificador.
HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Javier and has overruled the Sol-Gen’s tenor. The In effect, the SANDIGANBAYAN issued a resolution suspending their
SC has repeatedly and consistently demanded “the cold neutrality of an impartial respective public position and office for ninety (90) days.
judge” as the indispensable imperative of due process. To bolster that
requirement, we have held that the judge must not only be impartial but must Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging three grounds: [1] Order of
also appear to be impartial as an added assurance to the parties that his decision Suspension if executed shall affront the petitioner’s right for due process; [2] the
will be just. The litigants are entitled to no less than that. They should be sure suspension would assault his covenant to the people of Samar as their vice-
that when their rights are violated they can go to a judge who shall give them governor; and [3] the reasons sought to be prevented by the suspension no longer
justice. They must trust the judge, otherwise they will not go to him at all. They exist.
must believe in his sense of fairness, otherwise they will not seek his judgment.
Without such confidence, there would be no point in invoking his action for the Petitioner contends that the order of suspension, being predicated on his acts
justice they expect. supposedly committed while still a member of the Sangguniang Bayan, can no
Due process is intended to insure that confidence by requiring compliance with longer attach to him now that he is the duly elected and incumbent Vice-
what Justice Frankfurter calls the rudiments of fair play. Fair play calls for equal Governor of Eastern Samar.
justice. There cannot be equal justice where a suitor approaches a court already
committed to the other party and with a judgment already made and waiting ISSUES:
only to be formalized after the litigants shall have undergone the charade of a
formal hearing. Judicial (and also extrajudicial) proceedings are not orchestrated Whether or not the Order of Suspension given by the SANDIGANBAYAN is
plays in which the parties are supposed to make the motions and reach the valid?
denouement according to a prepared script. There is no writer to foreordain the
ending. The judge will reach his conclusions only after all the evidence is in and HELD:
all the arguments are filed, on the basis of the established facts and the pertinent
law.
 DUE PROCESS CASES DIGESTS

Yes. The Court ruled that the term "office" used in the law could apply to any question. The law expressly provides for such authority. And the power of the
office which the officer charged might currently be holding and not necessarily mayor to issue business licenses and permits necessarily includes the corollary
the particular office under which he was charged. power to suspend, revoke or even refuse to issue the same. However, the power
to suspend or revoke these licenses and permits is expressly premised on the
The suspension order cannot amount to a deprivation of property without due violation of the conditions of these permits and licenses. The laws specifically
process of law. Public office is "a public agency or trust,"and it is not the property refer to the "violation of the condition(s)" on which the licenses and permits were
envisioned by the Constitutional provision which petitioner invokes. issued. Similarly, the power to refuse to issue such licenses and permits is
premised on non-compliance with the prerequisites for the issuance of such
Hence, SC dismissed the petition. SANDIGANBAYAN’s decision is affirmed licenses and permits. The mayor must observe due process in exercising these
powers, which means that the mayor must give the applicant or licensee notice
HON. ALFREDO LIM and RAFAELITO and opportunity to be heard.
GARAYBLAS, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, 2. ID.; ID.; ID.; POWER TO INSPECT AND INVESTIGATE PRIVATE
HON. WILFREDO REYES and BISTRO PIGALLE, COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS DOES NOT INCLUDE POWER TO
INC.,respondents. ORDER POLICE RAID. — True, the mayor has the power to inspect and
SYNOPSIS investigate private commercial establishments for any violation of the conditions
When Mayor Lim disrupted the business operations of the New Bangkok Club of their licenses and permits. However, the mayor has no power to order a police
and the Exotic Garden Restaurant owned by respondent Bistro, the latter went to raid on these establishments in the guise of inspecting or investigating these
court where its application for writ of prohibitory preliminary injunction was commercial establishments. Lim acted beyond his authority when he directed
granted. Despite the same, however, Mayor Lim still issued a closure order of the policemen to raid the New Bangkok Club and the Exotic Garden Restaurant.
establishments, even sending policemen to carry out the order. Such act of Lim violated Ordinance No. 7716 which expressly prohibits police
The issue is the validity of the preliminary injunction, which the Court upheld. raids and inspections, to wit: "Section 1. No member of the Western Police District
The power of the mayor to suspend business licenses and work permits is shall conduct inspection of food and other business establishments for the
expressly premised on the violation of the terms and conditions thereof; and the purpose of enforcing sanitary rules and regulations, inspecting licenses and
power to inspect and investigate does not include the power to order a police permits, and/or enforcing internal revenue and customs laws and
raid on the establishments. Further, Mayor Lim has no authority to close down a regulations. This responsibility should be properly exercised by Local Government
business establishment without due process of law. The Court noted that Mayor Authorities and other concerned agencies." These local government officials include
Lim did not charge Bistro with any specific violation; that he closed down the the City Health Officer or his representative, pursuant to the Revised City
clubs before expiration of Bistro's business license; and that he refused to accept Ordinances of the City of Manila, and the City Treasurer pursuant to Section 470
the license and work applications of Bistro without examining whether it of the Local Government Code.
complies with the legal prerequisites. IAEcaH 3. ID.; ID.; ID.; REGULATORY POWERS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
SYLLABUS DOES NOT INCLUDE POWER OF MAYOR TO CLOSE DOWN A BUSINESS
1. POLITICAL LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; MAYORS; POWER TO ISSUE ESTABLISHMENT WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. — Lim has no authority
BUSINESS LICENSES AND PERMITS; INCLUDES POWER TO SUSPEND, to close down Bistro's business or any business establishment in Manila without
REVOKE OR REFUSE BUT ONLY IN CASE OF VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS. due process of law. Lim cannot take refuge under the Revised Charter of the City
— The authority of mayors to issue business licenses and permits is beyond of Manila and the Local Government Code. There is no provision in these laws
 DUE PROCESS CASES DIGESTS

expressly or impliedly granting the mayor authority to close down private a Civil Case for “injunction with prayer for preliminary injunction.” The case
commercial establishments without notice and hearing, and even if there is, such was filed on March 17, 1999 by Yasmira Pangadapun. Pangadapun questioned
provision would be void. The due process clause of the Constitution requires that the legality of Marohombsar’s appointment by DSWD Regional Secretary
Lim should have given Bistro an opportunity to rebut the allegations that it Salic-Malna as provincial social welfare officer V of the Department of Social
violated the conditions of its licenses and permits. The regulatory powers granted Welfare and Development – Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (DSWD-
to municipal corporations must always be exercised in accordance with law, with ARMM).
utmost observance of the rights of the people to due process and equal protection He reset the hearing on the application for the issuance of a writ of
of the law. Such power cannot be exercised whimsically, arbitrarily or preliminary gave Pangadapun up to
despotically. In the instant case, we find that Lim's exercise of this power violated April 5, 1999 to file her
Bistro's property rights that are protected under the due process clause of the During the hearing on the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
Constitution. Lim did not charge Bistro with any specific violation of the injunction on April 5, 1999, none of the lawyers appeared. Hence,
conditions of its business license or permits. Still, Lim closed down Bistro's respondent considered it submitted for resolution and issued the preliminary
operations even before the expiration of its business license on December 31, injunction the following day. In his partial Comment dated November 13, 2000,
1992. Lim also refused to accept Bistro's license application for 1993, in effect respondent denied that: (1) he issued the TRO in favor of Pangadapun without
denying the application without examining whether it complies with legal benefit of a hearing; (2) in his order dated March 22, 1999, he made it appear
prerequisites. that a preliminary conference was held where the parties agreed to waive the
4. REMEDIAL LAW; PROVISIONAL REMEDIES; PRELIMINARY raffle of the case, when in fact there was none; (3) he falsified the records of the
INJUNCTION; PURPOSE. — The sole objective of a writ of preliminary case and (4) he granted the preliminary injunction without a hearing He alleged
injunction is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard that the complaint was purely a harassment case filed by a disgruntled party
fully. It is generally availed of to prevent actual or threatened acts, until the because of the latter’s failure to obtain a favorable resolution from him.
merits of the case can be disposed of. In the instant case, the issuance of the writ RULING
of prohibitory preliminary injunction did not dispose of the main case A TRO is generally granted without notice to the opposite party and is intended
for mandamus. The trial court issued the injunction in view of the disruptions and only as a restraint on him until the propriety of granting a temporary injunction
stoppage in Bistro's operations as a consequence of Lim's closure orders. The can be determined. Respondent judge was justified in issuing the TRO ex parte
injunction was intended to maintain the status quo while the petition has not been due to his assessment of the urgency of the relief sought. Rule 58, Section 5 of the
resolved on the merits 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. However, and subject to the provisions of the
BAILINANG P. MAROHOMBSAR, complainant, vs. JUDGE preceding sections, if the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will
SANTOS B. ADIONG, respondent. suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury, the executive judge of a multiple-
This is a complaint filed against Judge Santos B. Adiong charging him with gross sala court or the presiding judge of a single-sala court may issue ex parte a
ignorance of law, abuse of discretion and conduct unbecoming of a judge in temporary restraining order effective for only seventy-two (72) hours from
connection with his issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) issuance but he shall immediately comply with provisions of the next preceding
and a preliminary restra section as to service of summons and the documents to be served therewith.
Supreme Court issued a resolution on February 6, 2000 referring the case to Thereafter, within the aforesaid seventy-two (72) hours, the judge before whom
Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria of the Court of Appeals for investigation, the case is pending shall conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the
hombsar was the defendant in temporary restraining order shall be extended until the application for
 DUE PROCESS CASES DIGESTS

preliminary injunction can be heard. In no case shall the total period of effectivity i. Whether or NOT Hon. Purganan acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or
of the temporary restraining order exceed twenty (20) days, including the with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
original seventy-two (72) hours provided therein. adopting a procedure of first hearing a potential extraditee before issuing an
arrest warrant under Section 6 of PD No. 1069
ii. Whether or NOT Hon. Purganan acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or
USA vs Purganan with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
granting the prayer for bail
FACTS: iii. Whether or NOT there is a violation of due process

Petition is a sequel to the case “Sec. of Justice v. Hon. Lantion”. The Secretary HELD: Petition is GRANTED. Bail bond posted is CANCELLED. Regional Trial
was ordered to furnish Mr. Jimenez copies of the extradition request and its Court of
supporting papers and to grant the latter a reasonable period within which to file Manila is directed to conduct the extradition proceedings before it.
a comment and supporting evidence. But, on motion for reconsideration by the
Sec. of Justice, it reversed its decision but held that the Mr. Jimenez was bereft of i. YES.
the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition
process. On May 18, 2001, the Government of the USA, represented by the By using the phrase “if it appears,” the law further conveys that accuracy is not
Philippine Department of Justice, filed with the RTC, the Petition for Extradition as
praying for the issuance of an order for his “immediate arrest” pursuant to Sec. important as speed at such early stage. From the knowledge and the material
6 of PD 1069 in order to prevent the flight of Jimenez. Before the RTC could act then available to it, the court is expected merely to get a good first impression or
on the petition, Mr. Jimenez filed before it an “Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte a prima facie finding sufficient to make a speedy initial determination as regards
Motion” praying for his application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing. After the arrest and detention of the accused. The prima facie existence of probable
the hearing, as required by the court, Mr. Jimenez submitted his Memorandum. cause for hearing the petition and, a priori, for issuing an arrest warrant was
Therein seeking an alternative prayer that in case a warrant should issue, he be already evident from the Petition itself and its supporting documents. Hence,
allowed to post bail in the amount of P100,000. The court ordered the issuance after having already determined therefrom that a prima facie finding did exist,
of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his temporary liberty at P1M in cash. respondent judge gravely abused his discretion when he set the matter for
After he had surrendered his passport and posted the required cash bond, hearing upon motion of Jimenez. The silence of the Law and the Treaty leans to
Jimenez was granted provisional liberty. the more reasonable interpretation that there is no intention to punctuate with a
hearing every little step in the entire proceedings. It also bears emphasizing at
Government of the USA filed a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the this point that extradition proceedings are summary in nature. Sending to
Rules of Court to set aside the order for the issuance of a warrant for his arrest persons sought to be extradited a notice of the request for their arrest and setting
and fixing bail for his temporary liberty at P1M in cash which the court deems it for hearing at some future date would give them ample opportunity to prepare
best to take cognizance as there is still no local jurisprudence to guide lower and execute an escape which neither the Treaty nor the Law could have intended.
court.
Even Section 2 of Article III of our Constitution, which is invoked by Jimenez,
ISSUES: does not require a notice or a hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
 DUE PROCESS CASES DIGESTS

To determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants, the Constitution stating that the “right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the
itself requires only the examination under oath or affirmation of complainants writ of habeas corpus is suspended” finds application “only to persons judicially
and the witnesses they may produce. charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.”

The Proper Procedure to “Best Serve The Ends Of Justice” In Extradition Cases That the offenses for which Jimenez is sought to be extradited are bailable in
Upon receipt of a petition for extradition and its supporting documents, the the United States is not an argument to grant him one in the present case.
judge must study them and make, as soon as possible, a prima facie finding Extradition proceedings are separate and distinct from the trial for the offenses
whether for which he is charged. He should apply for bail before the courts trying the
a) they are sufficient in form and substance criminal cases against him, not before the extradition court.
b) they show compliance with the Extradition Treaty and Law
c) the person sought is extraditable Exceptions to the “No Bail” Rule
Bail is not a matter of right in extradition cases. It is subject to judicial
At his discretion, the judge may require the submission of further documentation discretion in the context of the peculiar facts of each case. Bail may be applied
or may personally examine the affiants and witnesses of the petitioner. If, in spite for and granted as an exception, only upon a clear and convincing showing
of this study and examination, no prima facie finding is possible, the petition may 1) that, once granted bail, the applicant will not be a flight risk or a danger to
be dismissed at the discretion of the judge. On the other hand, if the presence of the community; and
a prima facie case is determined, then the magistrate must immediately issue a 2) that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances
warrant for the arrest of the extraditee, who is at the same time summoned to including, as a matter of reciprocity, those cited by the highest court in the
answer the petition and to appear at scheduled summary hearings. Prior to the requesting state when it grants provisional liberty in extradition cases therein
issuance of the warrant, the judge must not inform or notify the potential
extraditee of the pendency of the petition, lest the latter be given the opportunity Since this exception has no express or specific statutory basis, and since it is
to escape and frustrate the proceedings. derived essentially from general principles of justice and fairness, the applicant
bears the burden of proving the above two-tiered requirement with clarity,
ii. Yes. precision and emphatic forcefulness.

The constitutional provision on bail on Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution, It must be noted that even before private respondent ran for and won a
as well congressional seat in Manila, it was already of public knowledge that the United
as Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, applies only when a person has States was requesting his extradition. Therefore, his constituents were or should
been arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. It does not have been prepared for the consequences of the extradition case. Thus, the court
apply to extradition proceedings, because extradition courts do not render ruled against his claim that his election to public office is by itself a compelling
judgments of conviction or acquittal. Moreover, the constitutional right to bail reason to grant him bail.
“flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of every accused who should Giving premium to delay by considering it as a special circumstance for the
not be subjected to the loss of freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to grant of bail would be tantamount to giving him the power to grant bail to
acquittal, unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In extradition, the himself. It would also encourage him to stretch out and unreasonably delay the
presumption of innocence is not at issue. The provision in the Constitution extradition proceedings even more. Extradition proceedings should be
 DUE PROCESS CASES DIGESTS

conducted with all deliberate speed to determine compliance with the a) It is not a criminal proceeding which will call into operation all the
Extradition Treaty and Law; and, while safeguarding basic individual rights, to rights of an accused as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. It does not
avoid the legalistic contortions, delays and technicalities that may negate that involve the determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused. His
purpose. guilt or innocence will be adjudged in the court of the state where he will
That he has not yet fled from the Philippines cannot be taken to mean that he be extradited.
will stand his ground and still be within reach of our government if and when it b) An extradition proceeding is summary in nature while criminal
matters; that is, upon the resolution of the Petition for Extradition. proceedings involve a full-blown trial.
iii. NO. c) In terms of the quantum of evidence to be satisfied, a criminal case
Potential extraditees are entitled to the rights to due process and to requires proof “beyond reasonable doubt” for conviction while a fugitive
fundamental fairness. The doctrine of right to due process and fundamental may be ordered extradited “upon showing of the existence of a prima
fairness does not always call for a prior opportunity to be heard. A subsequent facie case”
opportunity to be heard is enough. He will be given full opportunity to be heard d) Unlike in a criminal case where judgment becomes executory upon
subsequently, when the extradition court hears the Petition for Extradition. being rendered final, in an extradition proceeding, our courts may
Indeed, available during the hearings on the petition and the answer is the full adjudge an individual extraditable but the President has the final
chance to be heard and to enjoy fundamental fairness that is compatible with the discretion to extradite him.
summary nature of extradition.
It is also worth noting that before the US government requested the extradition Extradition is merely a measure of international judicial assistance
of respondent, proceedings had already been conducted in that country. He through which a person charged with or convicted of a crime is restored
already had that opportunity in the requesting state; yet, instead of taking it, he to a jurisdiction with the best claim to try that person. The ultimate
ran away. purpose of extradition proceedings in court is only to determine whether
the extradition request complies with the Extradition Treaty, and
Other Doctrines: whether the person sought is extraditable.
Five Postulates of Extradition 4) Compliance Shall Be in Good Faith.
1) Extradition Is a Major Instrument for the Suppression of Crime We are bound by pacta sunt servanda to comply in good faith with our
In this era of globalization, easier and faster international travel, and an obligations under the Treaty. Accordingly, the Philippines must be ready and in
expanding ring of international crimes and criminals, we cannot afford to be an a position to deliver the accused, should it be found proper
isolationist state. We need to cooperate with other states in order to improve our 5) There Is an Underlying Risk of Flight
chances of suppressing crime in our own country. Indeed, extradition hearings would not even begin, if only the accused
2) The Requesting State Will Accord Due Process to the Accused By entering were
into an extradition treaty, the Philippines is deemed to have reposed its trust willing to submit to trial in the requesting country. Prior acts of herein
in the reliability or soundness of the legal and judicial system of its treaty partner, respondent:
as well as in the ability and the willingness of the latter to grant basic rights to a) leaving the requesting state right before the conclusion of his
the accused in the pending criminal case therein. indictment proceedings there; and
3) The Proceedings Are Sui Generis
An extradition proceeding is sui generis:
 DUE PROCESS CASES DIGESTS

b) remaining in the requested state despite learning that the requesting Section 12 of R.A. No. 7659. The Ombudsman moved to amend the Information
state is seeking his return and that the crimes he is charged with are twice — initially, to introduce changes in the Information (including a change in
bailable the appellation of the accused Eleuterio Tan, Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy to John
Doe a.k.a. as Eleuterio Tan or Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy), and thereafter,
Extradition is Essentially Executive
to include Jaime C. Dichaves as accused; the Sandiganbayan granted the
Extradition is essentially an executive, not a judicial, responsibility motions. 6 The pertinent portions of the Amended Information 7 read:
arising out of the presidential power to conduct foreign relations and to
implement treaties. Thus, the Executive Department of government has That during the period from June, 1998 to January, 2001, in the
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
broad discretion in its duty and power of implementation.
Court, accused Joseph Ejercito Estrada, then a public officer,
[G.R. Nos. 156399-400. June 27, 2008.]
being then the president of the Republic of the Philippines, by
himself and/or in connivance/conspiracy with his co-accused,
VICTOR JOSE TAN UY, petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE who are members of his family, relatives by affinity or
OMBUDSMAN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, consanguinity, business associates, subordinates and/or other
SANDIGANBAYAN (SPECIAL DIVISION), CARLOS S. persons, by taking undue advantage of his official position,
CAACBAY OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF authority, relationship, connection or influence, did then and
INVESTIGATION, ROMEO T. CAPULONG, LEONARD there willfully, unlawfully and criminally amass, accumulate
DE VERA, AND DENNIS B. FUNA, respondents. and acquire by himself, directly or indirectly, ill-gotten wealth
in the aggregate amount or total value of Four Billion Ninety-
seven Million Eight Hundred Four Thousand One Hundred
Seventy-three Pesos and Seventeen Centavos
DECISION
[P4,097,804,173.17], more or less, thereby unjustly enriching
himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage of the
Pilipino people and the Republic of the Philippines, through
BRION, J p: any or a combination or a series of overt or criminal acts, or
similar schemes or means, described as follows:
We resolve in this Decision the petition filed by petitioner Victor Jose Tan Uy
(a) by receiving or collecting, directly or indirectly, on
(the "petitioner") under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to assail the
several instances, money in the aggregate amount of
interrelated Orders dated 13 September 2002 1 and 16 October 2002 2 of the
Five Hundred Forty-five Million Pesos
respondent Office of the Ombudsman (the "Ombudsman") in OMB-0-00-
(P545,000,000.00), more or less, from illegal gambling
1720 3 and OMB-0-00-1756 4for grave abuse of discretion and/or lack or excess
in the form of gift, share, percentage, kickback or any
of jurisdiction. IcAaEH
form of pecuniary benefit, by himself and/or in
THE ANTECEDENTS connivance with co-accused Charlie 'Atong' Ang, Jose
The Ombudsman filed on 4 April 2001 with the Sandiganbayan an 'Jinggoy' Estrada, Yolanda T. Ricaforte and Edward
Information 5 charging former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, together with Serapio and John Does and Jane Does, in
Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada, Charlie "Atong" Ang, Edward Serapio, Yolanda T. consideration of toleration or protection of illegal
Ricaforte, Alma Alfaro, Eleuterio Tan a.k.a. Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, Jane gambling; ACSaHc
Doe a.k.a. Delia Rajas, John Does and Jane Does, with the crime of Plunder, (b) by diverting, receiving, misappropriating,
defined and penalized under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7080, as amended by converting OR misusing directly, or indirectly for his
 DUE PROCESS CASES DIGESTS

or their personal gain and benefit, public funds in the Dichaves, John Does and Jane Does in the amount of
amount of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY MILLION more or less, Three Billion Two Hundred Thirty-three
PESOS (P130,000,000.00), more or less, representing a Million One Hundred Four Thousand One Hundred
portion of the Two Hundred Million Pesos Seventy-three Pesos and Seventeen Centavos
(P200,000,000.00) tobacco excise tax share allocated for (P3,233,104,173.17) and depositing the same under his
the Province of Ilocos Sur under R.A. No. 7171, BY account name "Jose Velarde" at the Equitable-PCI
HIMSELF AND/OR in CONNIVANCE with co- Bank. ECTIcS
accused Charlie 'Atong' Ang, Alma Alfaro, John Doe
a.k.a. Eleuterio Tan or Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. CONTRARY TO LAW.
Uy, and Jane Doe a.k.a. Delia Rajas AND OTHER The case, which originated from OMB-0-00-1720 (entitled National Bureau of
JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES; [underscores Investigation v. Luis "Chavit" Singson, et. al.) and OMB-0-00-1756 (entitled Romeo
supplied ] T. Capulong, et. al., v. Joseph Ejercito Estrada, et. al.), was docketed in the
(c) by directing, ordering and compelling, for his Sandiganbayan as Criminal (Crim.) Case No. 26558.
personal gain and benefit, the Government Service In the course of the proceedings, the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan
Insurance System (GSIS) to purchase 351,878,000 an Omnibus Motion dated 8 January 2002 8 seeking, among others, the issuance
shares of stocks, more or less, and the Social Security of a warrant of arrest against Victor Jose Tan Uy alias Eleuterio Tan, Eleuterio
System (SSS) 329,855,000 shares of stocks, more or less, Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy. The Ombudsman alleged that no warrant of arrest had been
of the Belle Corporation in the amount of more or less issued against the accused John Doe who was designated in the Information
One Billion One Hundred Two Million Nine Hundred as Eleuterio Tan, Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy; and that, in order not to frustrate
Sixty-five Thousand Six Hundred Seven Pesos and the ends of justice, a warrant of arrest should issue against him after he had been
Fifty Centavos (P1,102,965,607.50) and more or less identified to be also using the name Victor Jose Tan Uy with address at 2041 M.
Seven Hundred Forty-four Million Six Hundred J. Cuenco Avenue, Cebu City. Allegedly, a positive identification had been made
Twelve Thousand and Four Hundred Fifty Pesos through photographs, as early as the Senate Impeachment Trial against former
(P744,612,450.00), respectively or a total of more or President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, that John Doe a.k.a. Eleuterio Tan, Eleuterio Ramos
less One Billion Eight Hundred Forty-seven Million Tan or Mr. Uy and VICTOR JOSE TAN UY are one and the same person.
Five Hundred Seventy-eight Thousand Fifty-seven
Pesos and Fifty Centavos (P1,847,578,057.50); and by To support this motion, the Ombudsman attached: (1) copies of the photographs
collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by identified at the Senate Impeachment Trial; and (2) the Sworn Statement of Ma.
himself and/or in connivance with Jaime Dichaves, Caridad Manahan-Rodenas (the "Rodenas Sworn Statement") dated 26 June 2001
John Does and Jane Does, commissions or percentages executed before Atty. Maria Oliva Elena A. Roxas of the Fact Finding and
by reason of said purchases of shares of stock in the Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman ("FFIB"). [For purposes of
amount of One Hundred Eighty-nine Million Seven this Decision, these are collectively referred to as the "identification documents." ]
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P189,700,000.00) more or
The Ombudsman further filed a Manifestation and Motion dated 5 March
less, from the Belle Corporation which became part of
2002 9 asking for the manual insertion in the Amended Information of the name
the deposit in the Equitable-PCI Bank under the
VICTOR JOSE TAN UY; it relied on Section 7, Article 110 of the Revised Rules of
account name "Jose Velarde";
Criminal Procedure, which provides:
(d) by unjustly enriching himself from commissions,
SEC. 7. Name of the accused. — The complaint or information
gifts, shares, percentages, kickbacks, or any form of
must state the name and surname of the accused or any
pecuniary benefits, in connivance with Jaime C.
 DUE PROCESS CASES DIGESTS

appellation or nickname by which he has been or is known. If

his name cannot be ascertained, he must be described under a
fictitious name with a statement that his true name is In a parallel Manifestation and Motion 14 dated 11 April 2002 filed with
unknown. the Sandiganbayan, the petitioner asked for the suspension of the criminal
proceedings insofar as he is concerned; he likewise moved for a preliminary
If the true name of the accused is thereafter disclosed by him investigation. DacTEH
or appears in some other manner to the court, such true name
shall be inserted in the complaint or information and record. The Ombudsman opposed 15 the petitioner's Manifestation and Motion with a
refutation of the petitioner's various claims. Among others, it claimed that it
The petitioner's response was a Petition to Conduct Preliminary served, in the preliminary investigation it conducted, the subpoena at the
Investigation 10 filed with the Ombudsman. The petitioner argued that: (1) he purported address of Eleuterio Tan, Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy at
was not subjected to a preliminary investigation or to any previous inquiry to Bagbaguin, Valenzuela City as indicated in the complaint-affidavits. It posited
determine the existence of probable cause against him for the crime of plunder that it was the petitioner's fault that his true name was not ascertained, the
or any other offense, as: (a) he was not included as respondent in either of the petitioner having made clever moves to make it difficult to identify him with his
two Ombudsman cases — bases of the criminal proceeding; (b) neither his name nefarious deeds. It also argued that the petitioner could not ask for any
nor his address at No. 2041 M.J. Cuenco Avenue, Cebu City was mentioned at affirmative relief from the Sandiganbayan which had not acquired jurisdiction
any stage of the preliminary investigation conducted in the criminal cases; (c) the over the petitioner's person.
preliminary investigation in the cases that led to the filing of Crim. Case No.
26558 was conducted without notice to him and without his participation; (d) he The petitioner reiterated in his Reply to Opposition 16 (filed with the
was not served any subpoena, whether at his address at No. 2041 M.J. Cuenco Sandiganbayan) the points he raised before the Ombudsman. He additionally
Avenue, Cebu City or at any other address, for the purpose of informing him of stressed that: (1) the fundamental issue is whether or not a preliminary
any complaint against him for plunder or any other offense and for the purpose investigation was conducted with respect to him; as the records show, he was
of directing him to file his counter-affidavit; and (2) dictates of basic fairness and never subjected to any preliminary investigation; (2) he was never given by the
due process of law require that petitioner be given the opportunity to avail prosecution the opportunity to prove in any preliminary investigation that he is
himself of the right to a preliminary investigation since the offense involved is not Eleuterio Tan; had he been given such opportunity, petitioner would have
non-bailable in character. aHTcDA shown that he wasted no time and took immediate steps to establish his
innocence shortly after the illegal use and submission of his photo and
The petitioner additionally alleged that he filed a complaint with the Regional usurpation of his identity surfaced at the impeachment proceedings; (3) he timely
Trial Court of Cebu City docketed as CEB-25990 against a certain Eleuterio Tan invoked his right to a preliminary investigation, as motions or petitions for the
for maligning him by using his picture, address, and other personal conduct of preliminary investigation may be entertained by the Sandiganbayan
circumstances without his consent or authority, which acts led to his alleged even before the movant or petitioner is brought under its jurisdiction under the
involvement in the tobacco excise tax scandal. 11 He also claimed that he rule that any objection to a warrant of arrest or procedure in the acquisition by
personally visited then Senate President Aquilino Pimentel at the height of the the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before plea;
impeachment trial to dispute his identification as Eleuterio Tan; he then (4) while the invalidity of the preliminary investigation does not affect the
expressed his willingness to testify before the Impeachment Court and jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, it should however suspend the proceedings
subsequently wrote Senator Pimentel a letter about these concerns. 12 He claimed and remand the case for the holding of a proper preliminary investigation; and
further that he submitted the signatures appearing on the signature cards (5) a preliminary investigation is imperative because the offense involved is non-
supposedly signed by Eleuterio Tan and the two (2) company identification cards bailable. DTAaCE
supposedly presented by the person who opened the Land Bank account for
examination by a handwriting expert; the result of the handwriting examination The Ombudsman denied in an Order dated 10 May 2002 17 the petition for the
disclosed that the signatures were not his. 13 conduct of a preliminary investigation. It rejected the petitioner's claims,
 DUE PROCESS CASES DIGESTS

reasoning out that the petitioner's requested preliminary investigation had long 2.2. Neither has any allegation been made in the Complaint-
been terminated and the resulting case had already been filed with the Letter dated 14 November 2000 of Carlos S. Caacbay, Deputy
Sandiganbayan in accordance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure; hence, the Director for Special Investigation Services, or in any of its
petitioner's remedy is to ventilate the issues with the Sandiganbayan. supporting documents that I have been identified as being
among the named respondents therein.
The Sandiganbayan, on the other hand, granted in a Resolution dated 19 June
2002 18 the petitioner's motion and directed the Ombudsman to conduct a 2.3. Moreover, there has been no allegation linking me to any
preliminary investigation with respect to the petitioner. It also held in abeyance criminal act for any of the offenses charged or any other
— until after the conclusion of this preliminary investigation — action on the criminal offense.
Ombudsman's motion to amend the Information to insert the petitioner's name
and to issue a warrant for his arrest. 3. With respect to the Complaint-Affidavit in OMB-0-00-
1756 filed by Romeo T. Capulong, Leonard de Vera and
In compliance with the Sandiganbayan Resolution, the Ombudsman issued Dennis B. Funa, the only respondents named are: (1) (former)
an Order 19 requiring the petitioner to file his counter-affidavit, the affidavits of President Joseph E. Estrada, (2) (former) First Lady Luisa
his witnesses, and other supporting documents. Attached to the Ombudsman's Estrada, (3) Jinggoy Estrada, (4) Charlie Ang, (5) Delia Rajas,
Order were the Complaint-Affidavit in OMB-0-00-1756 and the NBI Report in (6) Eleuterio Tan, and (7) Alma Alfaro.
OMB-0-00-1720. The petitioner filed his counter-affidavit, 20 pertinent portions
of which read: CSIDEc 3.1. As may easily be gleaned from the documents served upon
me with the 08 August 2002 Order, I am not among the
2. With respect to the Complaint-Affidavit in OMB-0001720, it respondents named or included in OMB-0-00-1756. Neither
may be noted that the same was originally filed with the has there been any mention of my name in the Complaint-
Department of Justice as I.S. No. 2000-1829, with the National Affidavit dated 28 November 2000 or in any of its supporting
Bureau of Investigation as complainant and the following as documents marked Annexes 'A-1' to 'A-5' (consisting of 523
respondents, namely: (1) Luis 'Chavit' Singson, (2) Deogracias pages, more or less, of the transcripts of stenographic notes of
Victor B. Savellano, (3) Carolyn M. Pilar, (4) Antonio A. Gov. Luis Singson's testimony before the Senate Blue Ribbon
Gundran, (5) Dr. Ernie A. Mendoza II, Ph. D., (6) Leonila Committee and the Senate Committee on Justice) and Annex
Tadena, (7) Estrella Mercurio, (8) Dionisia Pizarro, (9) Cornelio 'B' (the 25 September 2000 Affidavit of Gov. Luis
Almazan, (10) Erlita Q. Arce, (11) Maricar Paz, (12) Marina Singson). aCcEHS
Atendido, (13) Nuccio Saverio, (14) Alma Aligato Alfaro, (15)
Eleuterio Tan or Eleuterio Ramos Tan, and (16) Delia Rajas. 3.2 Neither has any allegation been made in the Complaint-
(I.S. No. 2000-1829 was thereafter referred to the Office of the Affidavit dated 28 November 2000 nor any of its supporting
Ombudsman as per the 1st indorsement of Secretary Artemio documents that I have been identified as being among the
G. Tuquero dated 14 December 2000). named respondents therein.

2.1. As may easily be gleaned from the documents served upon 3.3. Moreover, there has been no allegation linking me to any
me with the 08 August 2002 Order, I am not among the criminal act for any of the offenses charged or any other
respondents named or included in eitherI.S. No. 2000- criminal offense.
1829 or OMB-0-00-1720. Neither has there been any mention 4. In view of the foregoing, it is submitted that the instant cases
of my name in the Complaint-Letter dated 14 November 2000 ought to be dismissed with respect to me, there being no
of Carlos Caacbay, Deputy Director for Special Investigation factual allegation or basis in the instant cases to warrant any
Services or in any of its supporting documents. DACTSa
 DUE PROCESS CASES DIGESTS

further action thereon. The instant cases should thus be to contradict the allegations that Eleuterio Tan or Eleuterio
dismissed outright for want of palpable merit. Ramos Tan refers to Victor Jose Tan Uy as one and the same
person. What are contained in the counter-affidavit are mere
The Ombudsman thereafter issued an order requiring the attendance of
general denials without defenses on why respondent is
Rodenas and the petitioner in a clarificatory hearing. 21 The petitioner filed
distinct and different from Eleuterio Tan. In all likelihood,
aManifestation and Motion, 22 arguing that considering the thrust of his
respondent used the name of Eleuterio Tan or Eleuterio Ramos
counter-affidavit, there is no need for a hearing because there is nothing that
Tan in making his transaction with Land Bank to hide his real
would require clarification as to matters stated in his counter-affidavit and there is
identity. Notwithstanding the concealment, there were
also no point for a clarificatory hearing on the complaints-affidavits given the patent want
available pieces of evidence unearthing respondent's true
of probable cause as against him. The petitioner did not personally attend the
identity thus, arriving to the firm conclusion that Eleuterio Tan
clarificatory hearing. Rodenas did not also show up. The petitioner then filed a
or Eleuterio Ramos Tan is the same person as herein
Motion to Resolve 23 the case. DaEcTC
respondent Victor Jose Tan Uy. 24
At this point, the Ombudsman issued the first of the orders assailed in the present
The petitioner moved to reconsider the Ombudsman's Order, 25 but the latter
petition; it found probable cause to charge the petitioner before the
denied the motion in the second order assailed in this petition. 26 The second
Sandiganbayan. The basis for the finding runs:
assailed order in part reads:
It has to be emphasized that during the investigation
conducted by the Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau
(FFIB), this Office, and referred to on page 2 of the After an assiduous evaluation of the grounds and arguments
Resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated June 19, 2002, raised by the movant in his motion, we find no cogent reason
granting the motion for preliminary investigation of to disturb the resolution and order finding probable cause to
respondent Victor Jose Tan Uy, Ma. Caridad Manahan- indict respondent Victor Jose Tan Uy. TAHCEc
Rodenas of the Land Bank of the Philippines identified the
picture bearing the name Victor Jose Tan Uy as Eleuterio Tan xxx xxx xxx
who presented to her two identification cards (IDs), which
It has to be emphasized that the fact of identifying Victor Jose
were found to exactly match the picture of the said
Tan Uy as one and the same person as Eleuterio Tan or
respondent with his LTO license. Verily, the identification
Eleuterio Ramos Tan by Landbank employee, Ma. Caridad
made by Rodenas based on pertinent documents which
respondent presented when he opened the account at Land Rodenas, has already formed part of the preliminary
Bank remains credible, and that Victor Jose Tan Uy was the investigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman. In
same person who appeared and introduced himself as the said preliminary investigation, Victor Jose Tan Uy was
Eleuterio Tan or Eleuterio Ramos Tan to Ma. Caridad A. ordered to appear in a clarificatory conference to confront
Manahan-Rodenas of the Land Bank, thereby establishing Rodenas. But Uy did not appear. Instead, his counsel
his true identity. It is therefore, clear that the person submitted a manifestation to dispense with the clarificatory
mentioned in OMB-0-00-1720 and OMB-0-00-1756, during the hearing and submit the case for resolution. The scheduled
preliminary investigation thereof, as Eleuterio Tan or Eleuterio conference could have provided opportunity for Victor Jose
Ramos Tan is no other than Victor Jose Tan Uy. [underscoring Tan Uy to dispute the findings that Eleuterio Tan or Eleuterio
supplied] cHDEaC Ramos Tan is one and the same person. Instead, per
information and admission of counsel, accused Victor Jose Tan
Further, a perusal of the allegations in respondent's counter- Uy was in the United States. As to the exact date of departure,
affidavit [sic] the same has not proffered any material evidence counsel refused to divulge. The skill and cleverness of accused
 DUE PROCESS CASES DIGESTS

in playing hide and seek is putting a heavy toll in the proper respective complaint-affidavits or in any of their supporting documents; neither
administration of justice. has any allegation been made in the respective complaint-affidavits or in any of
their supporting documents that he had been identified as being among the
Further, Victor Jose Tan Uy did not submit any evidence, named respondents; and there has been no allegation linking him to any criminal
documentary or otherwise, that would lead the Office of the act for any of the offenses charged or any other criminal offense; and
Ombudsman to believe that Victor Jose Tan Uy is different
from Eleuterio Tan or Eleuterio Ramos Tan. aTADCE (b) the Ombudsman relied on evidence and findings that were never part of the
complaints-affidavits or their supporting documents served upon the petitioner
Moreover, previously before the Honorable Court, the
and were never adduced or presented in the course of the preliminary
accused-movant, through counsel, was already confronted investigation conducted with respect to the petitioner. STIcaE
with pieces of evidence. He was identified through an I.D.
with computer-generated photograph marked as Exhibit "J" by The petitioner's supporting arguments essentially center on the irregularity of the
previous prosecution witnesses: Jemis Singson, Atty. David Sandiganbayan-ordered preliminary investigation and the worth and efficacy of
Yap and Ilonor Madrid as the same person Victor Jose Tan Uy. the evidence the complainants presented with respect to his identification as
Eleuterio Tan, Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy. He questions the regularity of the
Due process cannot be compartmentalized. The court preliminary investigation for having been attended by shortcuts and for being a
proceedings participated in by the accused-movant form part sham proceeding that violates his right to due process. Specifically, he claims that
and parcel of such due process, in the same manner that the the duty of the Ombudsman is to determine the existence of probable cause based
further preliminary investigation is inseparable from the said on the evidence presented, not to fill up the deficiencies of the complaint, nor to
court proceedings. [emphasis supplied] remedy its weaknesses. He objects to the use of the FFIB investigation results to
Finally, if only to highlight the redundant opportunity given support the finding of probable cause since these investigation results were never
to the accused-movant to controvert the pieces of evidence presented at the preliminary investigation of OMB-0-00-1720 and OMB-0-00-
against him, in the hearing on the "Motion to Expunge and 1756, and reliance thereon violates his due process rights. He adds that the FFIB
Opposition" last 9 October 2002, the accused-movant's counsel was never a complainant heard in either of these cases. He emphasizes that the
was directly confronted with the same ID that identified his Rodenas sworn statement in the FFIB investigation identifying him as Eleuterio
client as the very same person using the pseudonym Eleuterio Tan is a mere scrap of paper that does not constitute evidence in the preliminary
Tan, Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy. However, again the investigation since it was never presented therein, and that the burden of proving
accused-movant through counsel literally refused to admit or at the preliminary investigation that he is Eleuterio Tan rests with the
deny if the person depicted in the I.D. is his client Victor Jose complainants. ScHAIT
Tan Uy. This indicates the futility of pursuing another round The Ombudsman counters all these with the position that the first preliminary
of such repetitious opportunity to controvert the said investigation, conducted prior to the filing of the Sandiganbayan charges, was
evidence. cSTHAC conducted fully in accordance with the rules and thus carried no infirmities.
THE PETITION AND THE PARTIES' SUBMISSIONS Specifically, the order for the petitioner to file his counter- and supporting
affidavits was regular because it was issued in his assumed names and was sent
Faced with the Ombudsman's rulings, the petitioner filed the present petition
to the addresses stated in the complaint as required by the procedural rules on
based on grounds that are rehashes of the issues already ventilated below. For
preliminary investigations.
clarity, the petitioner alleged grave abuse of discretion in the Ombudsman's
finding of probable cause on the grounds that: The respondent posits further that the issue of the validity of the first preliminary
investigation with respect to the petitioner has been rendered academic by the
(a) he was not among the respondents named or included in either OMB-0-00-
subsequent reinvestigation that the Sandiganbayan ordered. At this subsequent
1720 or OMB-0-00-1756; neither has there been any mention of his name in the
 DUE PROCESS CASES DIGESTS

investigation, the complaint-affidavits were duly furnished the petitioner who through various machinations and by his own fault, he has avoided confronting
merely alleged general denials in the counter-affidavit he filed. The petitioner the evidence of his identification. The Ombudsman stresses finally that its factual
failed to attend the clarificatory hearing where he could have controverted the finding of the existence of probable cause against the petitioner has full basis in
identification made by Rodenas in the FFIB investigation; he likewise had at least evidence and, being factual, should be accorded respect, if not finality. cCaEDA
seven opportunities in the totality of the proceedings to controvert his
OUR RULING
identification as Eleuterio Tan,27 but failed to avail himself of any of these
opportunities. These opportunities were: TCDcSE We find the petition impressed with merit.

First, when he received copies of the identification documents attached to the We clarify at the outset that the present petition is filed under Section 1, Rule 65
Ombudman's Omnibus Motion (dated 8 January 2002) and Manifestation and of the Revised Rules of Court whose scope of review is limited to the question:
Motion (dated 5 March 2002), he then filed his petition to conduct a preliminary was the order by the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi judicial
investigation with the Ombudsman; functions rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction? The "grave abuse of
Second, when he filed his Manifestation and Motion (dated 11 April 2002) with discretion" that the petitioner alleges in this case is defined by jurisprudence to be
the Sandiganbayan wherein he refused to directly controvert the identification a "capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
issues, although he quoted the Ombudsman's previous motions; jurisdiction, or [an] exercise of power in an arbitrary and despotic manner by
Third, when the petitioner filed his "Reply to Opposition" to the Ombudsman's reason of passion or personal hostility, or an exercise of judgment so patent and
"Manifestation and Motion" with the Sandiganbayan, his averments therein were gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to
in the nature of denials that met head on the positive identification made by perform the duty enjoined, or to act in a manner not at all in contemplation of
Rodenas; thus, the identification issues were joined and it then became the law." 28
petitioner's duty to confront the evidence of identification; At the core of the present controversy is the regularity, in the context of accepted
Fourth, when the Sandiganbayan ordered the preliminary investigation, this standards of due process, of the Ombudsman's conduct of the Sandiganbayan-
proceeding presented an opportunity to confront the identification documents, but ordered preliminary investigation. The petition must fail if the Ombudsman
he did not; complied with the basic requirements of due process and the prevailing rules and
jurisprudence on preliminary investigation. HDITCS
Fifth, when a clarificatory hearing was called during the Sandiganbayan-ordered
preliminary investigation, the hearing presented another opportunity, but the
petitioner's counsel filed a manifestation that his client did not wish to A preliminary investigation is held before an accused is placed on trial to secure
participate; CTHDcS the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecution; to protect him
Sixth, when the petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration of the first assailed from an open and public accusation of a crime, as well as from the trouble,
order in the present petition, he could have controverted the identification expenses, and anxiety of a public trial. It is also intended to protect the state from
documentstherein, but he did not; and having to conduct useless and expensive trials. While the right is statutory rather
than constitutional, it is a component of due process in administering criminal
Seventh, at the hearing of an incident before the Sandiganbayan, when the justice. The right to have a preliminary investigation conducted before being
petitioner's counsel was asked whether the man in the photograph shown him bound for trial and before being exposed to the risk of incarceration and penalty
was his client, he refused to answer the question although he could have simply is not a mere formal or technical right; it is a substantive right. To deny the
denied it. accused's claim to a preliminary investigation is to deprive him of the full
measure of his right to due process. 29
The respondent Ombudsman further argues that fault can be imputed only to the
petitioner who demands equity but has not come to Court with clean hands;
 DUE PROCESS CASES DIGESTS

Thus, as in a court proceeding (albeit with appropriate adjustments because it is that the decision (by an administrative body) must be rendered on the evidence
essentially still an administrative proceeding in which the prosecutor or presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties
investigating officer is a quasi-judicial officer by the nature of his functions), a affected; only by confining the administrative tribunal to the evidence disclosed
preliminary investigation is subject to the requirements of both substantive and to the parties, can the latter be protected in their right to know and meet the case
procedural due process. This view may be less strict in its formulation than what against them; it should not, however, detract from the tribunal's duty to actively see
we held in Cojuangco, Jr. v. PCGG, et al. 30 when we said: AcSIDE that the law is enforced, and for that purpose, to use the authorized legal methods of
securing evidence and informing itself of facts material and relevant to the
It must be undertaken in accordance with the procedure controversy. 33
provided in Section 3, Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal
Procedure. This procedure is to be observed in order to assure Mindful of these considerations, we hold that the petitioner's right to due process
that a person undergoing such preliminary investigation will has been violated. ECSHAD
be afforded due process.
We firstly note that the question of the petitioner's entitlement to a preliminary
xxx xxx xxx investigation — apart from the earlier preliminary investigation conducted by
the Ombudsman in OMB-0-00-1720 and OMB-0-00-1756 — has been fully settled
Although such a preliminary investigation is not a trial and is by the Sandiganbayan Resolution of June 19, 2002. None of the parties questioned
not intended to usurp the function of the trial court, it is not a this ruling which, in its material points, provides:
casual affair. The officer conducting the same investigates or
inquires into the facts concerning the commission of the crime 1. The preliminary investigation conducted in OMB-0-00-1720
with the end in view of determining whether or not an and OMB-0-00-1756 which led to the filing of the above-
information may be prepared against the accused. Indeed, a entitled case never mentioned the name of herein movant Jose
preliminary investigation is in effect a realistic judicial Victor Tan Uy. Instead, the preliminary investigation involves
appraisal of the merits of the case. Sufficient proof of the guilt one "Eleuterio Tan" a.k.a. "Eleuterio Ramos Tan" with address
of the accused must be adduced so that when the case is tried, at Brgy. Bagbaguin, Valenzuela City, Metro Manila or
the trial court may not be bound as a matter of law to order an on [sic] No. 20 Pilar St. Mandaluyong City. As declared by the
acquittal. A preliminary investigation has then been called a prosecution itself, Barangay Chairman Jose S. Gregorio, Jr. of
judicial inquiry. It is a judicial proceeding. An act becomes Brgy. Bagbaguin, Valenzuela, Metro Manila certified that
judicial when there is opportunity to be heard and for the "Eleuterio Tan" a.k.a. "Eleuterio Ramos Tan" is non-existent
production and weighing of evidence, and a decision is within the jurisdiction of their barangay. While the
rendered thereon. 31 prosecution asserted that "Eleuterio Tan" and 'Eleuterio Ramos
Tan' are the aliases of herein movant, we agree in the latter's
but we commonly recognize the need for the observance of due process. We observation that the one charged before the Office of the
likewise fully agree with Cojuangco in terms of the level of scrutiny that must Ombudsman was "Eleuterio Tan" alias "Eleuterio Ramos Tan"
be made — we do not expect the rigorous standards of a criminal trial, which indicates that the real name of the person charged is
but "[s]ufficient proof of the guilt of the accused must be adduced so that when the "Eleuterio Tan", not an alias only and his alias is "Eleuterio
case is tried, the trial court may not be bound as a matter of law to order an Ramos Tan". We find merit in the contention of the movant that
acquittal." TcCDIS there was no showing of any effort on the part of the Office of
In light of the due process requirement, the standards that at the very least assume Ombudsman to determine whether the names "Eleuterio Tan" and
great materiality and significance are those enunciated in the leading case of Ang "Eleuterio Ramos Tan" are mere aliases of an unidentified person.
Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations. 32 This case instructively tells us — in Further, as aptly observed by the movant, while 'Eleuterio Tan'
defining the basic due process safeguards in administrative proceedings — has other [sic] address at No. 20 Pilar St. Mandaluyong City, there
 DUE PROCESS CASES DIGESTS

was no showing that subpoena or copies of the complaints-affidavits the Philippines by the person who opened the account
were sent at the said address and no explanation was submitted by (Annex "F", Reply). As shown in the Questioned
the prosecution for such omission. [italics supplied] AcSEHT Document Report of Romeo Varona, handwriting
expert who conducted the examination, "the
2. The claim of the prosecution that movant's address at No.
questioned signatures/handwritings of Mr.
2041 M. J. Cuenco Avenue, Cebu City was not indicated
Jose [sic] Victor Jose Tan Uy appearing in the signature
because the said address was not yet discovered by the
cards of Land Bank of the Philippines, ET Enterprises
investigation panel during the preliminary investigation was
Inc., I.D. San Juan, Metro Manila and Solid Builders
rebutted by the movant. Movant was able to show that his
Center Mandaluyong City I.D. No, 19-0198 with their
address at Cebu City was made known during the hearing
corresponding date marked "Q-1" and "Q-8" inclusive
before the Impeachment Court on December 22, 2000. Yet,
and the standard signatures/handwritings submitted
despite knowledge of the movant's address, no subpoena or
for comparison marked "S-1" to "S-49" inclusive were
copies of the complaints-affidavits had been served upon him
written by two different persons" (Annex "G", Reply).
at said address by the prosecution. We understand the clamor of
Relative hereto, Mr. Varona executed an affidavit
herein movant that while the prosecution did not give him the
dated April 16, 2002 (Annex "B", Reply)." 34 TAESDH
opportunity to present his side, it already formed a conclusion that
he and "Eleuterio Tan" are one and the same person. [italics We quote this ruling as it contains the premises that justified the holding of
supplied] the Sandiganbayan-ordered preliminary investigation specifically for the
3. Movant, after learning from media reports that he was being petitioner. To restate the Sandiganbayan reasoning in simple terms: the
identified as "Eleuterio Tan", immediately took steps to petitioner was never identified in the previous preliminary investigation to
disprove the same, as follows: be the person identified by assumed names or aliases in the supporting
complaint-affidavits; hence, a new preliminary investigation should be
a. On December 29, 2000, he filed a complaint before conducted to identify him as the person who, using the aliases Eleuterio Tan,
the RTC of Cebu City, entitled "Victor Jose Tan Uy, v. Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, opened and withdrew from the Landbank
Eleuterio Tan", docketed as CEB-25990 . . . DTISaH account in the course of a series of acts collectively constituting the crime of
plunder.
b. Movant, through counsel, wrote a letter dated
January 5, 2001 to Senate President Aquillino The critical evidence linking the petitioner to the plunder case is his identification
Pimentel, disputing the claim that he is "Eleuterio Tan" through the identification documents. This notwithstanding and quite inexplicably,
and expressed his willingness to testify at the Senate theidentification documents — despite the fatal infirmity the Sandiganbayan found
Impeachment Proceeding to clear his name as to the in the first preliminary investigation — were once again not given to the
imputation that he is "Eleuterio Tan" (Annex "E", petitioner in the subsequent Sandiganbayan-ordered preliminary investigation
Reply) to inform him of his alleged links to the charges under the complaint-
affidavits. 35 ETDSAc
c. Movant, through counsel, sent a letter dated January
8, 2001 to the Regional Chief, PNP Crime Laboratory, How and why this happened was never satisfactorily explained in the parties'
Cebu City, requesting for examination of the various submissions. Based on the records of what actually transpired at the
handwriting appearing on the signature cards as Sandiganbayan-ordered preliminary investigation, we can glean the
supposedly signed by Eleuterio Tan and on the two (2) Ombudsman's intent to either confront and identify the petitioner through Ma.
identification cards (IDs) from two (2) different Caridad Manahan-Rodenas, or at least to introduce the Rodenas sworn
companies supposedly presented to the Land Bank of statement and the identification documents into the preliminary investigation
 DUE PROCESS CASES DIGESTS

records through her own personal appearance. For these purposes, the Following Ang Tibay, a decision in a proceeding must be rendered based on the
Ombudsman specifically called the petitioner and Rodenas to a clarificatory evidence presented at the hearing (of the proceeding), or at least contained in the
hearing that unfortunately did not result in either of these possibilities; the record (of the proceeding) and disclosed to the parties affected (during or at the
petitioner did not personally attend the hearing and Rodenas herself failed to proceeding). ADCTac
show up. At the same time, the Ombudsman was forced, upon the insistence of
the petitioner's counsel, to consider the inquiry submitted for resolution based Thus, we cannot agree with the Ombudsman's position that the petitioner should
on the records then existing. 36 Thus, the Ombudsman still failed to establish in controvert the identification documents because they already form part of the
the Sandiganbayan-ordered preliminary investigation the direct link between the records of the preliminary investigation, having been introduced in various
individual identified by aliases and the petitioner. incidents of Crim. Case No. 26558 then pending with the Sandiganbayan. The
rule closest to a definition of the inter-relationship between records of a
Unfortunately for the Ombudsman, the holding of the clarificatory hearing, in preliminary investigation and the criminal case to which it relates is Section 8
which Rodenas and the petitioner were the invitees, is replete with implications (b), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides that the record of the
touching on the existence of probable cause at that stage of the proceedings. To preliminary investigation, whether conducted by a judge or a prosecutor, shall not form
be sure, the prosecutor (Ombudsman) cannot be faulted for calling the part of the record of the case; the court, on its own initiative or on motion of any party,
clarificatory hearing as it is within his authority to do so. 37 As a rule, however, may order the production of the record or any of its parts when necessary in the resolution
no clarificatory hearing is necessary if the evidence on record already shows the of the case or any incident therein, or when it is introduced as an evidence in the case by
existence of probable cause; conversely, a clarificatory hearing is necessary to the requesting party. This rule, however, relates to the use of preliminary
establish the probable cause that up to the time of the clarificatory hearing has investigation records in the criminal case; no specific provision in the Rules exists
not been shown. This implication becomes unavoidable for the present case, regarding the reverse situation. We are thus guided in this regard by the basic
given the reason for the Sandiganbayan's order to conduct another preliminary due process requirement that the right to know and to meet a case requires that
investigation for the petitioner, and in light of the evidence so far then presented a person be fully informed of the pertinent and material facts unique to the
which, as in the first preliminary investigation, did not link the petitioner to the inquiry to which he is called as a party respondent. Under this requirement,
assumed names or aliases appearing in the Information. reasonable opportunity to contest evidence as critical as the identification
documents should have been given the petitioner at the Sandiganbayan-ordered
Under the above circumstances, the respondent Ombudsman could only fall back preliminary investigation as part of the facts he must controvert; otherwise, there
on the simple response that due process cannot be compartmentalized; the court is nothing to controvert as the burden of evidence lies with the one who asserts that a
proceedings participated in by the accused-movant (the petitioner) form part and parcel probable cause exists. The Ombudsman's failure in this regard tainted its findings
of such due process in the same manner that the further preliminary investigation is of probable cause with grave abuse of discretion that effectively nullifies them.
inseparable from the said court proceedings. 38 We do not however find this response We cannot avoid this conclusion under the constitutional truism that in the
sufficiently compelling to save the day for the respondent. That the petitioner hierarchy of rights, the Bill of Rights takes precedence over the right of the State to
may have actual prior knowledge of the identification documents from proceedings prosecute, and when weighed against each other, the scales of justice tilt towards the
elsewhere is not a consideration sufficiently material to affect our conclusion. former. 40 ESCTaA
Reasonable opportunity to controvert evidence and ventilate one's cause in a
proceeding requires full knowledge of the relevant and material facts specificto WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby GRANT the petition and
that proceeding. One cannot be expected to respond to collateral allegations or accordingly ANNUL the Ombudsman's interrelated Orders dated 13 September
assertions made, or be bound by developments that transpired, in some other 2002 and 16 October 2002 in OMB-0-00-1720 and OMB-0-00-1756.
different although related proceedings, except perhaps under situations where
facts are rendered conclusive by reason of judgments between the same
parties 39 — a situation that does not obtain in the present case. Otherwise,
surprise — which is anathema to due process — may result together with the
consequent loss of adequate opportunity to ventilate one's case and be heard.