ESTRADA vs.
OMB investigation that the Ombudsman furnish a respondent with the
21 January 2015
FACTS
 Copies of complaints, which prayed for criminal proceedings for
plunder and Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019—respectively—be
conducted, were served to the Jinggoy Estrada. Estrada filed his
counter-affidavits, respectively.
 Estrada filed his Request to be Furnished with Copies of Counter-
Affidavits of the Other Respondents, Affidavits of New Witnesses and
Other Filings in the plunder case with the OMB. Such request was
made pursuant to the right of a respondent to examine the evidence
submitted by the complainant who he may not have been furnished
and to have access to the evidence on record.
 OMB denied Estrada’s request on the ground that there is no
provision under the Rules of Procedure which entitles him to be
furnished all the filings by the other parties, e.g. other respondents
and witnesses.
 OMB found probable cause to indict Estrada and his correspondents
with 1 count of plunder and 11 counts of violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA
3019.
 Estrada failed to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the OMB’s
order denying his request, instead he opted to file the present petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 seeking to annul and set aside said
order.
ISSUE
1) Whether or not Estrada’s request to be furnished with copies of
counter-affidavits by other respondents and witnesses shall be
granted
2) Whether or not denial of request violated Estrada’s constitutional
right to due process
HELD
1) No.
There is no law or rule which requires the Ombudsman to furnish a
respondent with copies of the counter-affidavits of his
correspondents.
2) No.
Estrada failed to specify a law or rule which states that it is a
compulsory requirement of due process in a preliminary
counter-affidavits of his correspondents. Neither Sec. 3(b), Rule 112
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure nor Sec. 4(c), Rule II of
the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman supported
Estrada’s claim. The Rules of Procedure of the Office of the OMB
requires the OMB to furnish the respondent with a copy of the
complaint and the supporting affidavits and documents of the
complainant and his witnesses, not the affidavits of the
correspondents, at the time the order to submit the counter-affidavit
is issued to the respondent.
Sec. 4(c), Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
OMB, which provides that a respondent shall have access to the
evidence on record, should be construed in relation to Sec. 4(a) and
(b) of the same Rule, as well as to the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
1) The investigating officer shall require the complainant or
supporting witnesses (those of the complainant, and do not refer
to the correspondents) to execute affidavits to substantiate the
complaint.
2) The investigating officer shall issue an order attaching thereto a
copy of the affidavits and all other supporting documents,
directing the respondent to submit his counter-affidavit.
3) The respondent shall have the right to examine the evidence
submitted by the complainant which he may not have been
furnished and to copy them at his expense. A respondent’s right
to examine refers only to the evidence submitted by the
complainant.
It is a fundamental principle that the accused in a preliminary
investigation has no right to cross-examine the witnesses which the
complainant may present. Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court
expressly provides that the respondent shall only have the right to
submit a counter-affidavit, to examine all other evidence submitted
by the complainant and, where the fiscal sets a hearing to propound
clarificatory questions to the parties or their witnesses, to be afforded
an opportunity to be present but without the right to examine or
cross-examine.