Sunteți pe pagina 1din 6

DUE PROCESS

1. CRUZ, petitioner vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent 2

2. JAVIER, petitioner vs. COMELEC, respondent 2

3. LIBANAN, petitioner vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent 3

4. LIM, petitioner vs. CA, respondent 4

5. MAROHOMBSAR, petitioner vs. JUDGE ADIONG, respondent 4

6. USA, petitioner vs. PURGANAN, respondent 5

7. UY, petitioner vs. OMBUDSMAN, respondent 5

(SandeeSuan)
Page 1 of 6
[G.R. No. 144464, November 27, 2001] judge, all at the same time against the petitioners is
untenable. The CA correctly explained that the CSC is
1. CRUZ, petitioner vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
mandated to hear and decide administrative case
respondent instituted by it or instituted before it directly or on appeal
including actions of its officers and the agencies
FA C T S attached to it
(a) Petitioners Arguments (Cruz and Paitim Lost) - The fact that the complaint was filed by the CSC itself
- Argued that they deprived of their right to due process does not mean that it could not be an impartial judge. As
because the Civil Service Commission was the an administrative body, its decision was based on
complainant, the Prosecutor and the Judge, all at the substantial findings. Factual findings of administrative
same time. bodies, being considered experts in their field, are
- Appealed to SC the decision of Respondent CSC binding on the Supreme Court.8 The records clearly
disclose that the petitioners were duly investigated by
(b) Respondents Arguments (CSC Win) the CSC
- Filed a complaint against Petitioners for "Dishonesty, - It cannot be denied that the petitioners were formally
Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best charged after a finding that a prima facie case for
Interest of the Service dishonesty lies against them. They were properly
- Argued that Respondent Gilda Cruz applied to take the informed of the charges. They submitted an Answer and
were given the opportunity to defend themselves.
July 30, 1989 Career Service Subprofessional
Petitioners cannot, therefore, claim that there was a
examination. A verification of our records revealed that
denial of due process much less the lack of jurisdiction
the picture of Cruz pasted in the Picture Seat Plan of the
on the part of the CSC to take cognizance of the case.
said examination held at Room 21 of the Ramon
We do not find reversible error with the decision of the
Magsaysay Elementary School, Quezon City, bears no
Court of Appeals in upholding the CSC Resolution.
resemblance to the pictures of Cruz as appearing in the
picture seat plans of the previous Career Service
Subprofessional Examinations which she took last July [G.R. No. L-68379-81, Sept. 22, 1986]
26, 1987 and July 31, 1988 respectively. It would 2. JAVIER, petitioner vs. COMELEC, respondent
appear that the purported picture of Cruz pasted in the
Picture Seat Plan of the said July 30, 1989 examination
FA C T S
is the picture of a different person. Further verification
showed that this picture belongs to a certain (a) Petitioners Arguments (Javier Lost)
Respondent Zenaida Paitim, Municipal Treasurer of - Filed a case to nullify the proclamation of the
Norzagaray, Bulacan who apparently took the said Respondent Pacificador as Member of the Batasan of
examination on behalf of Cruz and on the basis of the Antique by the COMELEC Second Division
application bearing the name and personal - Argued that the proclamation was void because it was
circumstances of Cruz. made only by a division and not by the Commission on
- Ordered the dismissal from the government service of Elections en banc as required by the Constitution
Petitioners after the investigation - Argued that there were serious anomalies in the conduct
ISSUE of the elections and the canvass of the election returns.
- Whether or not the right to due process by Petitioners The elections were marred by "massive terrorism,
intimidation, duress, vote-buying, fraud, tampering and
was violated
falsification of election returns under duress, threat and
HELD intimidation, snatching of ballot boxes perpetrated by
CONCLUSION: The right to due process by Petitioners the armed men of respondent Pacificador." Particular
was not violated. The appeal is dismissed mention was made of the municipalities of Caluya,
RULE: Cabate, Tibiao, Barbaza, Laua-an, and also of San
- Section 28, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules Remigio, where the petitioner claimed the election
and Regulations explicitly provides that the CSC can returns were not placed in the ballot boxes but merely
rightfully take cognizance over any irregularities or wrapped in cement bags or Manila paper.
anomalies connected to the examinations, as it reads: - Argued that his right to due process was violated
Sec. 28. The Commission shall have original because one of the Commissioners of the COMELEC
disciplinary jurisdiction over all its officials and who is Commissioner Opinion refused to prohibit himself
employees and over all cases involving civil service for he was a former law partner of private respondent
examination anomalies or irregularities." Pacificador
- Book V, Title 1, Subtitle A, Chapter 3, Section 12,
paragraph 11 of the Administrative Code of 1987 states: (b) R e s p o n d e n t s A r g u m e n t s ( C O M E L E C a n d
Pacificador Win)
(11) Hear and decide administrative cases instituted
by or brought before it directly or on appeal, including
- Argued that the pre-proclamation controversy between
contested appointments, and review decisions and the petitioner and the private respondent was not yet a
actions of its offices and of the agencies attached to it. contest at that time and therefore could be validly heard
Officials and employees who fail to comply with such by a mere division of the Commission on Elections,
decisions, orders, or rulings shall be liable for consonant with Section 3. The issue was at this stage
contempt of the Commission. Its decisions, orders, or still administrative and so was resoluble by the
rulings shall be final and executory. Such decisions, Commission under its power to administer all laws
orders, or rulings may be brought to the Supreme relative to the conduct of elections, not its authority as
Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty sole judge of the election contest.
(30) days from receipt of a copy thereof; - Argued that the case had become moot and academic
APPLICATION: due to the death of Petitioner and to the abolition of the
- In this case, Petitioners' contention that they were Batasang Pambansa as well as the disappearance of
the office in dispute between the petitioner and the
denied due process of law by the fact that the CSC
acted as investigator, complainant, prosecutor and
(SandeeSuan)
Page 2 of 6
private respondent-both of whom have gone their of innocence and proved the motives of the Second
separate ways Division when it rendered its decision.
ISSUE - Commissioner Opinion, being a lawyer, should have
- Whether or not the proclamation of the Respondent recognized his duty and abided by this well-known rule
Pacificador as Member of the Batasan of Antique by the of judicial conduct. For refusing to do so, he divested the
COMELEC Second Division is void Second Division of the necessary vote for the questioned
decision, assuming it could act, and rendered the
HELD
proceeding null and void.
CONCLUSION: The case had become moot and
academic. However, the proclamation of Respondent
COMELEC could have been void had it not for its [G.R. No. 112386 June 14, 1994]
mootness. The petition is dismissed 3. LIBANAN, petitioner vs. SANDIGANBAYAN,
RULE: respondent
- The word "contests" should not be given a restrictive
meaning; on the contrary, it should receive the widest FA C T S
possible scope conformably to the rule that the words (a) Petitioners Arguments (Libanan Lost)
used in the Constitution should be interpreted liberally. - Argued that the order of suspension, being predicated
As employed in the 1973 Constitution, the term should on his acts supposedly committed while still a member
be understood as referring to any matter involving the of the Sangguniang Bayan, can no longer attach to him
title or claim of title to an elective office, made before or now that he is the duly elected and incumbent Vice-
after proclamation of the winner, whether or not the Governor of Eastern Samar. The implementation of the
contestant is claiming the office in dispute. Needless to suspension order, he further claims, would amount to a
stress, the term should be given a consistent meaning deprivation of property without due process of law.
and understood in the same sense under both Section - Appealed to SC the decision of Respondent
2(2) and Section 3 of Article XII-C of the Constitution Sandiganbayan
- This Court has repeatedly and consistently demanded
"the cold neutrality of an impartial judge" as the (b) Respondents Arguments (Sandiganbayan and
indispensable imperative of due process. 15 To bolster Docena Win)
that requirement, we have held that the judge must not - Filed a criminal case with having violated Section 3(e) of
only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial as Republic Act No. 3019 for wilfully and unlawfully,
an added assurance to the parties that his decision will through evident bad faith and manifest partiality,
be just. 16 The litigants are entitled to no less than that. prevent and exclude Respondent Agustin B. Docena, a
They should be sure that when their rights are violated duly appointed and Qualified replacement of deceased
they can go to a judge who shall give them justice. They Sangguniang Panlalawigan member Luis A. Capito,
must trust the judge, otherwise they will not go to him at from exercising his rights and prerogatives as a
all. They must believe in his sense of fairness, otherwise member of the said body, by promulgating in their
they will not seek his judgment. Without such official capacities Sangguniang Panlalawigan
confidence, there would be no point in invoking his Resolution No. 01, Series of 1991, wherein they
action for the justice they expect. expressed their recognition of Atty. Socrates B. Alar as
- Due process is intended to insure that confidence by the official replacement of aforesaid deceased member,
requiring compliance with what Justice Frankfurter calls notwithstanding the recall of his appointment by the
the rudiments of fair play. Fair play cans for equal Department of Local Government, to the damage and
justice. There cannot be equal justice where a suitor prejudice of Agustin B. Docena
approaches a court already committed to the other party - Ordered the suspension of Petitioner
and with a judgment already made and waiting only to
be formalized after the litigants shall have undergone ISSUE
the charade of a formal hearing. Judicial (and also extra- - Whether or not the suspension order by Respondent
judicial) proceedings are not orchestrated plays in which Sandiganbayan violates Petitioners right to due process
the parties are supposed to make the motions and reach HELD
the denouement according to a prepared script. There is CONCLUSION: The suspension order did not violate
no writer to foreordain the ending. The judge will reach Petitioners right to due process. The appeal is dismissed
his conclusions only after all the evidence is in and all
RULE:
the arguments are filed, on the basis of the established
- In Deloso vs. Sandiganbayan, 3 this Court rejected a
facts and the pertinent law.
- The relationship of the judge with one of the parties may similar argument advanced by Governor Deloso who, at
the time of issuance of the suspension order, was
color the facts and distort the law to the prejudice of a
already occupying the office of governor and not the
just decision. Where this is probable or even only
position of municipal mayor that he held previously when
posssible, due process demands that the judge inhibit
charged with having violated the Anti-Graft Law. Prior to
himself, if only out of a sense of delicadeza. For like
Deloso, in Bayot vs. Sandiganbayan, 4 the suspension of
Caesar's wife, he must be above suspicion.
then Cavite mayor Bayot was also sustained even as he
APPLICATION: was charged for acts committed as a government
- In this case, given the general attitude of the Commission auditor of the Commission on Audit. In both instances,
on Elections toward the party in power at the time, and this Court ruled that the term "office" used in the law
the particular relationship between Commissioner could apply to any office which the officer charged
Opinion and MP Pacificador, one could not be at least might currently be holding and not necessarily the
apprehensive, if not certain, that the decision of the body particular office under which he was charged
would be adverse to the petitioner. As in fact it was. - Obviously, the suspension order cannot amount to a
Commissioner Opinion's refusal to inhibit himself and his deprivation of property without due process of law.
objection to the transfer of the case to another division Public office is "a public agency or trust," 5 and it is not
cannot be justified by any criterion of propriety. His the property envisioned by the Constitutional provision 6
conduct on this matter belied his wounded protestations which petitioner invokes

(SandeeSuan)
Page 3 of 6
APPLICATION: power violated Bistros property rights that are protected
- In this case, under the due process clause of the Constitution
- Lim has no authority to close down Bistros business or
[G.R. No. 111397 August 12, 2002] any business establishment in Manila without due
process of law. Lim cannot take refuge under the
4. LIM, petitioner vs. CA, respondent Revised Charter of the City of Manila and the Local
Government Code. There is no provision in these laws
FA C T S
expressly or impliedly granting the mayor authority to
(a) Petitioners Arguments (Mayor Lim and Garayblas close down private commercial establishments without
Lost) notice and hearing, and even if there is, such provision
- Argued that he, as the city mayor, has the power to would be void. The due process clause of the
issue, suspend or revoke business license. This Constitution requires that Lim should have given Bistro
statutory power is expressly provided for in Section 11 an opportunity to rebut the allegations that it violated the
(l), Article II of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila conditions of its licenses and permits
and in Section 455, paragraph 3 (iv) of the Local
Government Code of 1991.
[G.R. No. 144104, June 29, 2004]
- Appealed to SC the decision of CA
5. MAROHOMBSAR, petitioner vs. JUDGE ADIONG,
(b) Respondents Arguments (CA, Judge Reyes, and respondent
Bistro Pigalle, Inc. Win)
- Filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition against FA C T S
Petitioner Lim in his capacity as Mayor of the City of (a) Complainants Arguments (Marohombsar Lost)
Manila for ordering the closure of Respondents New - Filed a complaint against Respondent for gross
Bangkok Club and the Exotic Garden Restaurant ignorance of law, abuse of discretion and conduct
operations even before the expiration of its business unbecoming of a judge in connection with his issuance
license on December 31, 1992 and for refusing to of a preliminary injunction, as filed by Pangadapun,
accept Respondent Bistros license application for 1993 without a hearing for the appointment of Complainant as
- Argued that the legal provisions relied upon by provincial social welfare officer V of the Department of
Petitioner Lim do not expressly or impliedly grant him Social Welfare and Development Autonomous Region
any power to prohibit the operation of night clubs for Muslim Mindanao (DSWD-ARMM) in Civil Case No.
without specifying any violation of the conditions of its 1670-99. Thus, he is deprived of due process
licenses and permits. Petitioner Lims acts denied
Respondent Bistros right to property without due (b) Respondents Arguments (Judge Adiong Win)
process of law - Argued that the complaint was purely a harassment
- CA promulgated a decision in its favor case filed by Complainant as a disgruntled party
ISSUE because of the latters failure to obtain a favorable
- Whether or not Petitioner Mayor Lim validly ordered the resolution from him
closure of Respondent Bistros New Bangkok Club and ISSUE
the Exotic Garden Restaurant - Whether or not Respondent is administratively liable for
HELD the alleged act
CONCLUSION: Petitioner Mayor Lim invalidly ordered such HELD
closure. The appeal is dismissed CONCLUSION: Respondent is not liable. The complaint is
RULE: dismissed
- Under Section 11 (l), Article II of the Revised Charter of RULE:
the City of Manila and in Section 455, paragraph 3 (iv) of - In applications for preliminary injunction, the dual
the Local Government Code of 1991, it is clear that the requirement of prior notice and hearing before injunction
power of the mayor to issue business licenses and may issue has been relaxed to the point that not all
permits necessarily includes the corollary power to petitions for preliminary injunction need undergo a trial-
suspend, revoke or even refuse to issue the same. type hearing, it being doctrinal that a formal or trial-type
However, the power to suspend or revoke these licenses hearing is not, at all times and in all instances, essential
and permits is expressly premised on the violation of the to due process. The essence of due process is that a
conditions of these permits and licenses. The laws party is afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard
specifically refer to the "violation of the condition(s)" on and to present any evidence he may have in support of
which the licenses and permits were issued. Similarly, his defense.
the power to refuse to issue such licenses and permits is
premised on non-compliance with the prerequisites for APPLICATION:
the issuance of such licenses and permits. The mayor - In this case, complainant was able to move for a
must observe due process in exercising these powers,
reconsideration of the order in question, hence her right
which means that the mayor must give the applicant or
to due process was not in anyway transgressed. We
licensee notice and opportunity to be heard.
have ruled that a party cannot claim that he has been
APPLICATION: denied due process when he has availed of the
- In this case, Lim did not charge Bistro with any specific opportunity to present his position
violation of the conditions of its business license or - Even assuming for the sake of argument that respondent
permits. Still, Lim closed down Bistros operations even judge erred in ordering the issuance of the writ of
before the expiration of its business license on preliminary injunction, we ruled in Equatorial Realty vs.
December 31, 1992. Lim also refused to accept Bistros Anunciacion, Jr. that, as a matter of public policy, the
license application for 1993, in effect denying the acts of a judge in his official capacity are not subject to
application without examining whether it complies with disciplinary action even though such acts are erroneous,
legal prerequisites. We find that Lims exercise of this provided he acts in good faith and without malice.
Respondent judge, or any other member of the bench

(SandeeSuan)
Page 4 of 6
for that matter, is presumed to have acted regularly and oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
in the manner that preserves the ideal of the cold witnesses he may produce, and particularly
neutrality of an impartial judge implicit in the guarantee describing the place to be searched and the
of due process persons or things to be seized.
- To determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest
warrants, the Constitution itself requires only the
[G.R. No. 148571 September 24, 2002] examination -- under oath or affirmation -- of
complainants and the witnesses they may produce.
6. USA, petitioner vs. PURGANAN, respondent
There is no requirement to notify and hear the accused
before the issuance of warrants of arrest.
FA C T S - As suggested by the use of the word "conviction," the
(a) Petitioners Arguments (USA Win) constitutional provision on bail quoted above, as well as
- Filed a petition for a warrant of arrest and extradition of Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, applies only
Respondent Jimenez for (1) conspiracy to defraud the when a person has been arrested and detained for
United States and to commit certain offenses in violation violation of Philippine criminal laws. It does not apply to
of Title 18 US Code Section 371; (2) tax evasion, in extradition proceedings, because extradition courts do
violation of Title 26 US Code Section 7201; (3) wire not render judgments of conviction or acquittal.
fraud, in violation of Title 18 US Code Sections 1343 and - Moreover, the constitutional right to bail "flows from the
2; (4) false statements, in violation of Title 18 US Code presumption of innocence in favor of every accused who
Sections 1001 and 2; and (5) illegal campaign should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as
contributions, in violation of Title 2 US Code Sections thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his
441b, 441f and 437g(d) and Title 18 US Code Section 2. guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt." 60 It follows
- Argued that Respondent Judge erred in ordering for a that the constitutional provision on bail will not apply to a
hearing before the warrant of arrest was issued as well case like extradition, where the presumption of
as in the granting of bail to Respondent Jimenez innocence is not at issue.
- Appealed to SC the decision of the lower court - Accordingly and to best serve the ends of justice, we
believe and so hold that, after a potential extraditee has
(b) Respondents Arguments (Judge Purganan and been arrested or placed under the custody of the law,
Jimenez Lost) bail may be applied for and granted as an exception,
- Respondent Judge Purganan ordered the issuance of only upon a clear and convincing showing (1) that, once
the warrant but only after hearing. Respondent Judge granted bail, the applicant will not be a flight risk or a
Purganan also granted bail to Respondent Jimenez danger to the community; and (2) that there exist
- Respondent Jimenez argued that the request of special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances 71
Petitioner will deprive him of his constitutional right to including, as a matter of reciprocity, those cited by the
liberty without due process highest court in the requesting state when it grants
provisional liberty in extradition cases therein.
ISSUE
APPLICATION:
- Whether or not Respondent Judge Purganans acts of
- In this case, contrary to his contention, his detention
ordering a hearing before the warrant of arrest was
prior to the conclusion of the extradition proceedings
issued as well as in the granting of bail to Respondent
does not amount to a violation of his right to due
Jimenez is valid
process. We iterate the familiar doctrine that the
HELD essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard
CONCLUSION: Respondent Judge Purganans acts are 63 but, at the same time, point out that the doctrine does
invalid. He is ordered to cancel the bail of Respondent not always call for a prior opportunity to be heard. 64
Jimenez and expedite the extradition proceedings. The Where the circumstances -- such as those present in an
petition is granted extradition case -- call for it, a subsequent opportunity to
RULE: be heard is enough. 65 In the present case, respondent
- It is significant to note that Section 6 of PD 1069, our will be given full opportunity to be heard subsequently,
Extradition Law, uses the word "immediate" to qualify the when the extradition court hears the Petition for
arrest of the accused. This qualification would be Extradition. Hence, there is no violation of his right to
rendered nugatory by setting for hearing the issuance of due process and fundamental fairness.
the arrest warrant. Hearing entails sending notices to the - It is also worth noting that before the US government
opposing parties, 46 receiving facts and arguments 47 requested the extradition of respondent, proceedings
from them, 48 and giving them time to prepare and had already been conducted in that country. But
present such facts and arguments. Arrest subsequent to because he left the jurisdiction of the requesting state
a hearing can no longer be considered "immediate." The before those proceedings could be completed, it was
law could not have intended the word as a mere hindered from continuing with the due processes
superfluity but, on the whole, as a means of imparting a prescribed under its laws. His invocation of due process
sense of urgency and swiftness in the determination of now has thus become hollow. He already had that
whether a warrant of arrest should be issued. opportunity in the requesting state; yet, instead of taking
- Even Section 2 of Article III of our Constitution, which is it, he ran away.
invoked by Jimenez, does not require a notice or a
hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest. It [G.R. Nos. 156399-400 June 27, 2008]
provides:
7. UY, petitioner vs. OMBUDSMAN, respondent
Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects against
FA C T S
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and (a) Petitioners Arguments (Uy Win)
no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue - Argued and questions the regularity of the preliminary
except upon probable cause to be determined investigation for having been attended by shortcuts and
personally by the judge after examination under for being a sham proceeding that violates his right to

(SandeeSuan)
Page 5 of 6
due process. Specifically, he claims that the duty of the APPLICATION:
Ombudsman is to determine the existence of probable - In this case, the petitioner was never identified in the
cause based on the evidence presented, not to fill up previous preliminary investigation to be the person
the deficiencies of the complaint, nor to remedy its identified by assumed names or aliases in the
weaknesses. He objects to the use of the FFIB supporting complaint-affidavits; hence, a new
investigation results to support the finding of probable preliminary investigation should be conducted to identify
cause since these investigation results were never him as the person who, using the aliases Eleuterio Tan,
presented at the preliminar y investigation of Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, opened and withdrew
OMB-0-00-1720 and OMB-0-00-1756, and reliance from the Landbank account in the course of a series of
thereon violates his due process rights. He adds that the acts collectively constituting the crime of plunder.
FFIB was never a complainant heard in either of these - The critical evidence linking the petitioner to the plunder
cases. He emphasizes that the Rodenas sworn case is his identification through the identification
statement in the FFIB investigation identifying him as documents. This notwithstanding and quite inexplicably,
Eleuterio Tan is a mere scrap of paper that does not the identification documents despite the fatal infirmity
constitute evidence in the preliminary investigation since the Sandiganbayan found in the first preliminary
it was never presented therein, and that the burden of investigation - were once again not given to the
proving at the preliminary investigation that he is petitioner in the subsequent Sandiganbayan-ordered
Eleuterio Tan rests with the complainants preliminary investigation to inform him of his alleged
- Appealed to SC the complaint of the Ombudsman links to the charges under the complaint-affidavits
- We are thus guided in this regard by the basic due
(b) R e s p o n d e n t s A r g u m e n t s ( O f fi c e o f t h e process requirement that the right to know and to meet a
Ombudsman, et al. Lost) case requires that a person be fully informed of the
- Filed a complaint in Sandiganbayan against Petitioner pertinent and material facts unique to the inquiry to
with the crime of Plunder, defined and penalized under which he is called as a party respondent. Under this
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7080, as amended by Section requirement, reasonable opportunity to contest evidence
12 of R.A. No. 7659 together with President Joseph as critical as the identification documents should have
Ejercito Estrada, Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada, Charlie been given the petitioner at the Sandiganbayan-ordered
"Atong" Ang, Edward Serapio, Yolanda T. Ricaforte, preliminary investigation as part of the facts he must
Alma Alfaro controvert; otherwise, there is nothing to controvert as
- Argued that that the first preliminary investigation, the burden of evidence lies with the one who asserts
conducted prior to the filing of the Sandiganbayan that a probable cause exists. The Ombudsmans failure
charges, was conducted fully in accordance with the in this regard tainted its findings of probable cause with
rules and thus carried no infirmities. Specifically, the grave abuse of discretion that effectively nullifies them.
order for the petitioner to file his counter- and We cannot avoid this conclusion under the constitutional
supporting affidavits was regular because it was issued truism that in the hierarchy of rights, the Bill of Rights
in his assumed names and was sent to the addresses takes precedence over the right of the State to
stated in the complaint as required by the procedural prosecute, and when weighed against each other, the
rules on preliminary investigations. scales of justice tilt towards the former.40
ISSUE
- Whether or not the preliminary investigation conducted
by the Respondent Ombudsman is valid
HELD
CONCLUSION: The preliminary investigation conducted by
the Respondent Ombudsman is invalid. Respondents inter-
related OMB-0-00-1720 and OMB-0-00-1756 is annulled.
The appeal is granted.
RULE:
- As in a court proceeding (albeit with appropriate
adjustments because it is essentially still an
administrative proceeding where in which the prosecutor
or investigating officer is a quasi-judicial officer by the
nature of his functions), a preliminary investigation is
subject to the requirements of both substantive and
procedural due process
- In light of the due process requirement, the standards
that at the very least assume great materiality and
significance are those enunciated in the leading case of
Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations.32 This case
instructively tells us - in defining the basic due process
safeguards in administrative proceedings - that the
decision (by an administrative body) must be rendered
on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the parties
affected; only by confining the administrative tribunal to
the evidence disclosed to the parties, can the latter be
protected in their right to know and meet the case
against them; it should not, however, detract from the
tribunals duty to actively see that the law is enforced,
and for that purpose, to use the authorized legal
methods of securing evidence and informing itself of
facts material and relevant to the controversy.

(SandeeSuan)
Page 6 of 6

S-ar putea să vă placă și