Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
OMB
21 January 2015
FACTS
Copies of complaints, which prayed for criminal proceedings for
plunder and Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019respectivelybe
conducted, were served to the Jinggoy Estrada. Estrada filed his
counter-affidavits, respectively.
Estrada filed his Request to be Furnished with Copies of CounterAffidavits 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 Estradas 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 OMBs
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 Estradas 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 Estradas 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.