Johanne Edward B.

Labay
vs.
Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines
G.R. No.235937-40, July 23, 2018
[Velasco Jr., J.]
Criminal Due Process
Facts: Issue:
• A complaint was filed by the Ombudsman (OMB) against petitioner Labay • Whether petitioner Labay was denied of due process.
in the alleged anomalous utilization of PDAF. The OMB directed those
charged to file their counter-affidavits. The Order, however, could not be
served to petitioner as the latter was not present at his last known office Held:
and residential addresses. The OMB proceeded with the preliminary
investigation (PI). In its resolution dated May 10, 2016, the OMB found • The Court ruled in the NEGATIVE.
probable cause to indict petitioner.
• Upon learning about the charges against him, petitioner requested
information from the OMB through a letter dated October 4, 2016. The
OMB, however, served to petitioner its May 10, 2016 resolution.
• Petitioner filed a motion for reinvestigation with the Sandiganbayan (SB).
He argued that he had no opportunity to present his defense and to
participate with the PI; that he had neither been notified of the complaint
nor was furnished a copy of the same.
• The SB denied the motion. Hence, the instant petition.
Criminal Due Process (Sec. 1, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution) Preliminary Investigation
• That no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense • An inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient
without due process; ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof,
• That the accused shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty and should be held for trial.
beyond reasonable doubt;
• The right to have a preliminary investigation is a substantive right,
• That the accused has the right to be informed of the nature and such that its denial would deprive the respondent of his right to
cause of the accusations against him. due process.
Criminal due process requires that the procedures established by
law or the rules be followed to ensure that the State makes no
mistake in taking the life or liberty, except that of the guilty.
Procedural due process must be guaranteed throughout all stages of
criminal prosecution – from inception of custodial investigation until
rendition of judgment.
IN THE CASE AT BAR:
It is undisputed that the Ombudsman (OMB) was not able to serve copies of the complaint and its Order to petitioner Labay prior to or during the preliminary
investigation.
Without any counter-affidavit or participation from petitioner, the OMB resolved the case pursuant to Sec. 4(e) of the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure which
provides that in cases the respondent cannot be served with the order, or having been served but does not comply therewith, the complaint shall be deemed
submitted for resolution on the basis of the evidence on the record. Thus, in its May 10, 2016 Resolution, the OMB indicts petitioner of the crime charged
after finding probable cause.
Upon learning of the charges against him, petitioner requested the case records from the OMB through a letter dated October 4, 2016.
The Court held that, upon receipt of such request, the OMB should have furnished the complaint affidavit and other documents to petitioner. Instead, the
OMB furnished petitioner with a copy of its May 10, 2016 Resolution.
Clearly, petitioner had no opportunity to effectively and sufficiently address the allegations against him. Thus, petitioner was denied of his right to due
process.
The Sandiganbayan (SB) committed grave abuse of discretion. The SB should have remanded the case to the OMB for the conduct of a proper preliminary
investigation. Instead, it sustained the patent violations committed by the OMB.
Therefore, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions issued by the Sandiganbayan are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Office of the Special
Prosecutor is ORDERED to file motions to withdraw Informations in the criminal cases. SO ORDERED.