MANUEL C. ROXAS, et al. vs. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, et al.

[G.R. No. 114944, May 29, 2002]

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J:
FACTS:
Petitioner Roxas was the Chairman, while Nacpil was a Member, of the Bids
andAwards Committee of the Philippine Constabulary-Integrated National Police (PCINP). The PC-INP invited bids for the supply of sixty-five units of fire trucks. The Bids
and Awards Committeevoted to award the contract to the Tahei Co., Ltd., manufacturer
of Nikko-Hino. Accordingly, thecontract was executed between PC-INP and Tahei
Co.The COA subsequently discovered that there was a discrepancy in the amounts
indicatedon the disbursement voucher and the purchase order.Consequently, the
DILG Secretary filed a complaint with the Ombudsman against
therespondents.After preliminary investigation, the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military
recommended theindictment of all respondents, except Ramirez. On review, the Office
of the Special Prosecutor r e c o m m e n d e d t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h e c o m p l a i n t s
a g a i n s t R o x a s , N a c p i l , C o d o y, K a i r a n a n d R a m i r e z . F o r m a l c h a r g e s
were
filed
with
the
Sandiganbayan
against
Nazareno,
F l o r e s , Tanchanco, Custodio, Osia, Espea and Santos. Petitioners were not
included in the criminalinformation.Flores and Tanchanco moved for a
reinvestigation, which was granted. Thereafter, theOffice of the Special Prosecutor
recommended the dismissal of the charges against Flores andTanchanco. In the same
resolution, however, the Special Prosecutor made a sudden turnaboutas regards
Roxas, Nacpil and Kairan, and ordered their inclusion as accused.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the inclusion of the petitioners as accused violated their right
to dueprocess.
HELD: YES
. It appears that the charge against respondents was previously dismissed.
For this reason, there being no motion or reconsideration filed by the complainant, said
respondentsceased to be parties. Consequently, the mere filing of motions for
reconsideration by thosepreviously indicted, without questioning the dismissal of the
charge against the said respondents,could not and should not be made the basis for
impleading them as accused in this case withoutviolating their right to due
process.Furthermore, it appears that petitioners were deprived of due process when the
SpecialProsecutor reinstated the complaint against them without their
knowledge. Due process of lawrequires that every litigant must be given an
opportunity to be heard. He has the right to be present at every stage of the
proceedings