G.R. No. 212593-94 – 783 Phil. 304 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – Due Process – Preliminary Investigation; No right to cross examine witnesses
Due to information from whistleblowers (Benhur Luy, Marina Sula, and Merlina Suñas), Jessica Lucila Reyes, Janet Lim Napoles, Ruby Tuason, and others were investigated by the Ombudsman for Plunder. It was alleged that Reyes, the Chief of Staff of Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, together with Janet Napoles funneled Enrile’s PDAF to dubious NGOs; that the illegal scheme was facilitated by Reyes and Tuason (another staff of Enrile).
Reyes and Napoles, through their respective counter-affidavits, denied involvement. Meanwhile, Tuason submitted an affidavit implicating Reyes. A clarificatory hearing was conducted by the Ombudsman for Tuason to substantiate her affidavit. Reyes learned of Tuason’s affidavit. Reyes moved that she be furnished a copy of Tuason’s affidavit and the minutes of the clarificatory hearing. Her motion was denied. The next day, the Ombudsman issued a resolution finding probable cause against Reyes and Napoles for multiple counts of plunder.
ISSUE: Whether or not there has been a violation of Reye’s right to due process by reason of the Ombudsman’s denial of her motion to be furnished a copy of Tuason’s affidavit and the minutes of the clarificatory hearing.
HELD: No. Reyes is only entitled to confront affidavits / evidence submitted by the complainants, and not to those submitted by a co-respondent. Nevertheless, it would appear that despite the initial denial by the Ombudsman, Reyes was in fact furnished copies of some of the affidavits by Tuason and was even directed to submit her comments.
The SC emphasized that in preliminary investigations, there is no right to cross-examine. As such, probable cause may be determined even by hearsay evidence so long as there is substantial basis to support the credibility of the evidence.
May the Supreme Court review findings of the Ombudsman?
Yes when there is allegation of grave abuse of discretion. The SC will not interfere in the determination of the Ombudsman of the existence of probable cause, provided there is no grave abuse in the exercise of such discretion. This observed policy is based not only on respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well.
