Pontejos v Desierto

Facts:
In this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, petitioner seeks to set aside the decision of
the CA affirming the decision of respondent Aniano Disierto as Ombudsman, who found petitioner
guilty of grave misconduct and ordered his dismissal.

On August 26, 1998, the Housing and Land Regulatory Board (HLURB) received a Notice of Appeal
filed by Rasemco Inc. represented by its president Restituto Aquino, decided by Arbiter Pontejos,
petitioner herein. Aquino asked for the nullification of all the proceedings conducted before the
petitioner for alleged extortion, bribery, and graft and corruption, the petitioner allegedly in
conspiracy with Imperial and Atos both of HLURB and Ngo, and officer of Hammercon. Aquino claims
that they demanded and received monetary consideration in exchange for a favorable decision,
issuing a license despite a known impediment. Hlurb created a fact-finding committee to deal with
the complaint, and during their investigation Aquino filed an administrative complaint with the
Ombudsman. The accused denied the allegations, Pontejos adding that it is nothing more than a
disgruntled losing party seeking to gain leverage. Eventually the committee of the HLURB referred
their report to the Ombudsman.
Respondent Aniano Desierto placed Pontejos under preventive suspension for 6 months without pay
but eventually after finding probable cause to commence trial he was convicted of estafa and direct
bribery while his fellow accused, Imperial and Ngo were acquitted while Atos was extended
immunity as state witness.
Petitioner moved to reconsider with the Ombudsman which was denied.
It was he forwarded to the CA which the appellate court also denied.

Issues:
1) WON the CA erred in not declaring that the proceedings before the Ombudsman were tainted
with ill-motives
2) WON he CA erred in not declaring improper the grant of immunity to Atos
3) WON the CA erred in not declaring that the petitioner was denied of his right to due process
by the Ombudsman.
Held:
1) No. petitioner argues that HURB commissioner Teresita Desierto, the spouse of Ombudsman
Desierto allegedly harbored resentment against him for signing a Manifesto issue by some
lawyers in the HLURB. This led him to conclude that the Commissioner is the unseen hand
behind the filing of the criminal cases, and that he proceedings before the Ombudsman were
tainted with ill-motives. The court rejected this argument for petitioner based his theories on
mere speculations and conjectures. He presented no evidence that would prove the
Commissioner’s interference in the proceedings, or even that she bore a grudge against the
petitioner.
2) No. it is constitutionally permissible for Congress to vest the prosecutor with the power to
determine who can qualify as a witness and be granted immunity from prosecution as long
as the following requisites are present: There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the
accused whose discharge is rquested; There is no other direct evidence available for the
proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said accused; The
testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points; Said
accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and said accused has not at any time been
convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude. The fact that an individual had not been
previously charged or included in an information does not prevent the prosecution from
 utilizing said person as a witness. In the case at bar, the unjust favoritism was not proven so
the grant of immunity to Atos is justified.
3) No. petitioner alleges that he was not furnished a copy of the Affidavit of Atos, so he was not
afforded the opportunity to challenge the allegations in the affidavit, violating his right to due
process. Contrary to his assertion, the records show that petitioner eventually received a
copy of the Affidavit. He even challenged it in hi motion for reinvestigation and requested a
reconsideration. His right was clearly not violated for he was given the opportunity to be
heard and he availed it.
Petitioner also contends that the fact he was not able to confront Aquino who failed to appear
in two hearings, also constitutes a violation of his right to due process. He alleges that the absence of
Aquino can be a ground for the dismissal of the case. He insists that no substantial evidence existed
to hold him liable and the Ombudsman only relied on the affidavits of Atos and the subordinates of
Aquino. The court ruled that in an administrative context, proceedings followed in the courts of
justice are not required. When the respondent is afforded the opportunity to be heard there is no
violation of the right to due process. A formal type of hearing is not always necessary as long as the
respondent was given the opportunity to present his side, which is what happened in the case at bar.
The petitioner was given ample time to prepare his defense. He was even able to seek reconsideration
through his appeals. He had the opportunity to be heard, present his case and to submit his evidence.
Even the absence of Aquino in some hearings does not affect the fact that he was accorded due
process. Respecting the findings of the Ombudsman, there is substantial evidence to warrant herein
petitioner’s dismissal.