7/24/2019 Crim Pro Case
1/4
En Banc
G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015
Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada,Petitioner v. Bersain, !""ice
o" t#e
!$udsan, %ie&d 'nvestigation !""ice, !""ice o" t#e
!$udsan,
Nationa& Bureau o" 'nvestigation and (tty. )evito *.
Ba&igod,
Respondents
+#e %acts
On 25 November 2013, the Ombudsman served upon Sen. Estrada a
copy of
the complaint in O!"#"#"13"0313, filed by the N!$ and %tty.
!ali&od,'hich prayed, amon& others, that criminal
proceedin&s for (lunder as
defined in )% No. *0+0 be conducted a&ainst Sen. Estrada.
Sen. Estrada
filed his counter"affidavit in O!"#"#"13"0313 on -anuary
201.
On 3 /ecember 2013, the Ombudsman served upon Sen. Estrada a
copy of
the complaint in O!"#"#"13"03*, filed by the $O of the
Ombudsman,
'hich prayed, amon& others, that criminal proceedin&s
for (lunder, as
defined in )% No. *0+0, and for violation of Section 3e of )%
No. 301,
be conducted a&ainst Sen. Estrada. Sen. Estrada filed his
counter"affidavit in
O!"#"#"13"03* on 1 -anuary 201.
Ei&hteen of Sen. Estrada4s co"respondents in the t'o
complaints filed their
counter"affidavits bet'een /ecember 2013 and 1 arch
201.chan)oblesvirtuala'library
On 20 arch 201, Sen. Estrada filed hisRequest to be Furnished
with
Copies of Counter-Affidavits of the Other Respondents,
Affidavits of New
Witnesses and Other Filings)e6uest in O!"#"#"13"0313. $n his
)e6uest, Sen. Estrada as7ed for copies of the follo'in&
documents8a %ffidavit of 9co"respondent: )uby ;uason
;uason(leadin&s>ilin&s filed by all the other
respondents and>or additional 'itnesses for the
#omplainants.
Sen. Estrada4s re6uest 'as made ?pursuant to the ri&ht of a
respondent @to
eaine t#e evidence su$itted $y t#e co&ainant'hich he may
not
have been furnished4 Section 39b:, )ule 112 of the )ules of
#ourt and to
@#ave access to t#e evidence on record4 Section 9c:, )ule $$ of
the )ules
of (rocedure of the Office of the Ombudsman.an
On 2* arch 201, the Ombudsman issued the assailed Order in
O!"#"#"
13"0313 denyin& Senator Estrada4s re6uest to be furnished
'ith #opies of
#ounter"%ffidavits of the Other )espondents, %ffidavits of Ne'
Aitnesses
and Other ilin&s.
'ssue
/#et#er or Not !$udsans denia& in its 2 arc# 2014 !rder
o"
Senators re3uest constitute Grave a$use o" discretion
Ru&ing
No. Senator4s re6uest did not constitute &rave abuse of
discretion.;here is no la' or rule 'hich re6uires Ombudsman to
furnish a respondent a
respondent 'ith copies of the counter"affidavits of his
co"respondents
;he (reliminary investi&ation of cases ta7in& under the
Burisdiction of the
Sandi&anbayan and the )e&ional ;rial #ourt shall be
conducted in the
manner prescribed in Section 3, )ule 112 of )ules of #ourt,
subBect to the
follo'in& provisions8
a C. ;he investi&atin& officer shall re6uire the
complainant or
supportin& 'itnesses to eDecute affidavits to substantiate
the
complaints.
b C.. %fter such affidavits have been secured, the
investi&atin& officer
shall issue an order, attachin& thereto a coy o" a""idavits
and t#e
ot#er suorting docuents, directing resondents to su$it,
7/24/2019 Crim Pro Case
3/4
it#in 10 days "ro receit t#ereo", #is counter-a""idavits and
controverting evidence it# roo" o" service t#ereo" on t#e
co&ainant.
c C.the respondent shall have t#e access to t#e evidence on
record.
Ahat the )ules of (rocedure of the Office of the Ombudsman
re6uire is for
the Ombudsman to furnish the respondent 'ith a copy of the
complaint and
the supportin& affidavits and documents at t#e tie t#e order
to su$it
t#e counter-a""idavit is issued to t#e resondent.&ear&y,
#at Section
46$7 re"ers to are a""idavits o" t#e co&ainant and #is
itnesses, not t#e
a""idavits o" t#e co-resondents.Obviously, the
counter"affidavits of the
co"respondents are not part of the supportin& affidavits of
the complainant.
No &rave abuse of discretion can thus be attributed to the
Ombudsman for
the issuance of the 2* arch 201 Order 'hich denied Sen.
Estrada4s
)e6uest.
%lthou&h Section a states that ?the investi&atin&
officer shall re6uire the
complainant or supportin& 'itnesses to eDecute affidavits to
substantiate the
complaint. ;he ?supportin& 'itnesses are t#e itnesses o"
t#e
co&ainant, and do not re"er to t#e co-resondents.
Seond, Section b states that ?the investi&atin& officer
shall issue an order
attachin& thereto a copy of the affidavits and all other
supportin& documents,
directin& the respondent to submit his counter"affidavit.
;he affidavits
referred to in Section b are the affidavits mentioned in Section
a.
#learly, the affidavits to be furnished to the respondent are
the affidavits of
the complainant and his supportin& 'itnesses. ;he provision
in the
immediately succeedin& Section c of the same )ule $$ that a
respondent
shall have ?access to the evidence on record does not stand
alone, but
should be read in relation to the provisions of Section a and b
of the same)ule $$ re6uirin& the investi&atin& officer
to furnish the respondent 'ith the
?affidavits and other supportin& documents submitted by ?the
complainant
or suorting itnesses. ;hus, a respondent4s ?access to evidence
on
record in Section c, )ule $$ of the Ombudsman4s )ules of
(rocedure
refers to the affidavits and supportin& documents of ?the
complainant
or suorting itnesses in Section a of the same )ule $$.
