G.R. No. 212140-41 – 751 Phil. 821 – 748 SCRA 1 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – Bill of Rights – Due Process; Judicial Due Process – Preliminary Investigation; No right to cross-examination witnesses
In December 2013, the Ombudsman, in the conduct of a preliminary investigation, subpoenaed Sen. Jinggoy Estrada to answer a plunder complaint filed against him. He has co-respondents that were also directed to file their counter-affidavits. In March 2014, after his co-respondents filed their counter-affidavits, Jinggoy requested the Ombudsman for copies of the counter-affidavits of his co-respondents. His request was denied. Jinggoy then filed a petition for certiorari against the Ombudsman arguing that the denial of his request was a violation of his constitutional right to confront the witnesses.
ISSUE: Whether or not Jinggoy is correct.
HELD: No. It is a fundamental principle that a respondent 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. Even if Jinggoy was not given the opportunity to cross-examine his co-respondents, he cannot assert any legal right to cross-examine them at the preliminary investigation precisely because such right was never available to him.
The admissibility or inadmissibility of said testimonies should be ventilated before the trial court during the trial proper and not in the preliminary investigation.
Furthermore, the technical rules on evidence are not binding on the fiscal who has jurisdiction and control over the conduct of a preliminary investigation. In fact, the record of the preliminary investigation does not form part of the record of the case in court. As such, it is possible that statements of other co-respondents may not be admitted by the trial court if not presented in evidence by the prosecuting fiscal. And, even if the prosecution does present such statements, Jinggoy can always object thereto and the trial court can rule on the admissibility thereof; or, conversely, Jinggoy can, during the trial, petition said court to compel the presentation of co-respondents for purposes of cross-examination.
Preliminary investigation is akin to an administrative proceeding, is the guideline established in Ang Tibay vs CIR applicable?
No. Although the guidelines in administrative cases established in Ang Tibay are constitutionally mandated, they are not applicable to preliminary investigations. Preliminary investigations are creations of statutory law; they gave rise to mere statutory rights. A law can abolish preliminary investigations without running afoul with the constitutional requirements of due process. Unlike in administrative cases, preliminary investigations do not adjudicate with finality rights and obligations of parties. In preliminary investigations, only likelihood or probability of guilt is required. To apply Ang Tibay to preliminary investigations will change the quantum of evidence required to establish probable cause. The respondent in an administrative case has the right to an actual hearing and to cross-examine the witnesses against him. In preliminary investigations, the respondent has no such rights.
Further, in administrative cases, the hearing officer must be impartial and cannot be the fact-finder, investigator, and hearing officer at the same time. In preliminary investigations, the same public officer may be the investigator and hearing officer at the same time, or the fact-finder, investigator and hearing officer may be under the control and supervision of the same public officer, like the Ombudsman or Secretary of Justice. This explains why Ang Tibay does not apply to preliminary investigations. To now declare that the guidelines in Ang Tibay are fundamental and essential requirements in preliminary investigations will render all past and present preliminary investigations invalid for violation of constitutional due process. This will mean remanding for reinvestigation all criminal cases now pending in all courts throughout the country.
