Labay vs. Sandiganbayan

The right to due process in preliminary investigation includes the right of a respondent to be furnished with copies of the complaint-affidavit and supporting documents before the resolution finding probable cause is issued; mere receipt of the resolution finding probable cause does not cure the failure to provide the complaint-affidavit during the preliminary investigation stage.

Former Representative Marc Douglas C. Cagas IV of the 1st District of Davao del Sur allegedly conspired with public officials and private individuals, including petitioner Johanne Edward B. Labay as president of Farmer-business Development Corporation (FDC), to anomalously utilize Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) allocations totaling Php6,000,000.00. The alleged scheme involved the release and transfer of funds to FDC through the Technology Resource Center (TRC) for livelihood projects that field verification revealed were never implemented and were deemed "ghost projects."

• The PDAF Anomaly: The Field Investigation Office I of the Office of the Ombudsman filed a complaint on May 11, 2015 against petitioner Johanne Edward B. Labay, then president of Farmer-business Development Corporation (FDC), for his alleged participation in the anomalous utilization of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of former Representative Marc Douglas C. Cagas IV. The complaint alleged that Rep. Cagas IV conspired with other public officials and private individuals to transfer Php6,000,000.00 in PDAF allocations to FDC through the Technology Resource Center (TRC) for livelihood projects that were never implemented and were deemed "ghost projects" upon field verification.
• Failed Service: In a Joint Order dated September 1, 2015, the Ombudsman directed respondents to submit counter-affidavits within ten days. The Ombudsman attempted to serve copies of this Order on petitioner Labay at his office at the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) and at his last known residential address. The copies were returned unserved because petitioner was no longer employed at the NAPC and was unknown at the given residential address.
• Preliminary Investigation Without Participation: Unable to serve the Order, the Ombudsman proceeded with the preliminary investigation without any counter-affidavit or participation from petitioner Labay. In a Resolution dated May 10, 2016, the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict petitioner and co-respondents for conspiracy in committing two counts of Violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, one count of Malversation of Public Funds, and one count of Malversation through Falsification.
• Discovery and Request for Records: Petitioner alleged that he first learned of the charges in October 2016 through Ombudsman press releases. His daughter, Atty. Jo Blanca P.B. Labay, requested information from the Ombudsman's Central Records on October 3, 2016, and submitted a written request on October 4, 2016. In response, the Ombudsman served copies of the May 10, 2016 Resolution on October 10, 2016, and directed petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration within five days.
• Motions for Reinvestigation: Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion for Reinvestigation and Deferment of Filing of Information dated November 16, 2016, praying for reinvestigation and requesting copies of the complaint-affidavit and supporting documents. He argued that he had not been notified of the complaint nor furnished a copy, depriving him of the opportunity to present his defense. The Ombudsman denied this motion on November 25, 2016, ruling that diligent efforts had been made to serve the Order and that the filing of the motion cured any due process defect. Petitioner filed a second Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration on January 30, 2017, which the Ombudsman denied on February 1, 2017, treating it as a prohibited second motion for reconsideration.
• Filing of Informations and belated Disclosure: On March 24, 2017, the Ombudsman filed four Informations before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner was furnished copies of the Complaint-Affidavit and supporting evidence only on March 28, 2017, four days after the Informations were filed. Upon receiving copies of the Informations on April 4, 2017, petitioner filed an Extremely Urgent Motion with the Sandiganbayan on April 5, 2017, seeking reinvestigation on the ground that he was deprived of a complete preliminary investigation.

• Violation of Due Process: Petitioner maintained that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying his motion for reinvestigation, arguing that his constitutional right to due process was violated when the Ombudsman failed to furnish him with a copy of the complaint-affidavit and its attachments during the preliminary investigation.
• Inability to Defend: Petitioner argued that without access to the complaint-affidavit, he could not effectively and intelligently move for reconsideration of the Ombudsman's May 10, 2016 Resolution finding probable cause, as he was unaware of the specific allegations and evidence against him.
• Suppression of Evidence: Petitioner asserted that the Ombudsman's refusal to provide the complaint-affidavit despite his repeated requests constituted suppression of evidence, which violates due process rights.

• Substantial Compliance: The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) countered that there was no violation of due process because the Ombudsman exerted diligent efforts to serve the subpoena at petitioner's last known addresses, constituting substantial compliance with procedural requirements.
• Opportunity to be Heard: Respondent argued that petitioner was afforded due process when he was informed of the nature of the accusations through the May 10, 2016 Resolution, in response to which he was able to file omnibus motions. The OSP maintained that petitioner had the opportunity to refute the charges and present countervailing evidence through these motions.
• Deliberate Evasion: The OSP suggested that petitioner deliberately evaded service of the Ombudsman's orders, and asserted that it was incumbent upon petitioner to justify his whereabouts during the period when the Ombudsman attempted service.

• Due Process in Preliminary Investigation: Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner's motion for reinvestigation and ruling that he was not deprived of due process despite not being furnished with the complaint-affidavit during the preliminary investigation.
• Right to Information: Whether the failure to furnish the petitioner with copies of the complaint-affidavit and supporting documents during the preliminary investigation violated his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

• Due Process Violation: The Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for reinvestigation. Due process was violated because the Ombudsman failed to furnish petitioner with copies of the complaint-affidavit and supporting documents during the preliminary investigation, depriving him of the right to be informed of the charges and to submit countervailing evidence.
• Distinction Between Resolution and Complaint: Receipt of the Resolution finding probable cause is not equivalent to receipt of the complaint-affidavit and its supporting documents. The Resolution merely states the investigating officer's conclusion, whereas the complaint-affidavit contains the specific allegations and evidence necessary for the respondent to prepare a defense.
• Effect of Subsequent Motions: The filing of motions for reconsideration or reinvestigation did not cure the defect in the preliminary investigation because petitioner could not effectively address the allegations without having seen the complaint-affidavit. The right to examine the evidence submitted by the complainant is substantive and cannot be waived by the respondent's subsequent actions when the initial defect prevented meaningful participation.
• Burden of Service: The burden of properly implementing the law and ensuring service of process lies with the State, not with the accused to update the Ombudsman of his latest address. The OSP's assertion that petitioner deliberately evaded service was hypothetical and unsupported by concrete proof.

• Substantive Right to Preliminary Investigation — The right to a preliminary investigation is not a mere formal or technical right but a substantive right intended to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecution, and to protect the State from useless and expensive trials. It is essential to the full measure of the right to due process. The Court applied this doctrine to emphasize that denying a person the right to a proper preliminary investigation, including access to the complaint-affidavit, deprives him of the full measure of due process.
• Right to be Informed and Access Evidence — An accused in a criminal case has the right to be informed of the charges against him, to submit a counter-affidavit, and to have access to and examine all evidence submitted by the complainant. This right includes the examination of the complaint-affidavit and supporting documents before the resolution of the preliminary investigation. The Court ruled that the Ombudsman's failure to provide these documents despite the petitioner's availability violated this substantive right.
• Suppression of Evidence — Suppression of evidence, regardless of its nature, violates the due process rights of the accused. Withholding the complaint-affidavit from the respondent during preliminary investigation constitutes a denial of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The Court cited this doctrine to underscore that the Ombudsman's refusal to furnish the complaint-affidavit despite repeated requests was a patent violation of due process.
• Burden of Proper Implementation — The State bears the responsibility to use its resources for the proper implementation of the law, including ensuring that respondents in preliminary investigations are properly served with copies of the complaint and supporting documents. This burden cannot be shifted to the accused by requiring him to update the Ombudsman of his address or to submit himself to the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. The Court rejected the OSP's argument that petitioner should have updated his address, holding that such a requirement would curtail constitutionally protected rights.

• "The right to have a preliminary investigation conducted before being bound over to trial for a criminal offense and be formally at risk of incarceration or some other penalty is not a mere formal or technical right. It is a substantive right since the accused in a criminal trial is inevitably exposed to prolonged anxiety, aggravation, humiliation, not to speak of expense, and the right to an opportunity to avoid a painful process is a valuable right." — Articulates the substantive nature of the right to preliminary investigation as a component of due process.
• "It is clear from the foregoing that an accused in a criminal case has the right to be informed of the charges against him, to submit a counter­ affidavit, and to have access to and examine all other evidence submitted by the complainant." — Establishes the tripartite rights of the accused during preliminary investigation.
• "By the mere fact that petitioner was not yet even furnished a copy of the complaint affidavit at the time he received the Ombudsman's May 10, 2016 Resolution, it is clear that he could not effectively and sufficiently address the allegations against him." — Explains why receipt of the resolution does not cure the failure to provide the complaint-affidavit.
• "Time and again, the Court has held that suppression of evidence, regardless of its nature, is enough to violate the due process rights of the accused." — Reinforces the gravity of withholding evidence from the accused.
• "The burden should not be placed on the accused since it is the State which has the responsibility to use its resources for the proper implementation of the law. To rule otherwise would effectively curtail the constitutionally protected rights of the people to be secure with their life, liberty and property." — Allocates the burden of procedural compliance to the State rather than the accused.

• Duterte v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 130191, April 27, 1998 — Cited as controlling precedent where the Court ordered dismissal of criminal cases when accused were not sufficiently apprised of charges during preliminary investigation; distinguished as the present case involved a more severe violation where the complaint-affidavit was withheld despite the petitioner's requests and availability.
• Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 143618-41, July 30, 2002 — Cited for the principle that criminal due process requires following procedure established by law throughout all stages of criminal prosecution.
• Rolito Go y Tambunting v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101837, February 11, 1992 — Cited for the doctrine that preliminary investigation is a substantive right, not merely formal or technical.
• Reynolan T Sales v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 143802, November 16, 2001 — Cited for the protective purpose of preliminary investigation against hasty and oppressive prosecution.
• Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015 — Cited for the right of the accused to examine evidence submitted by the complainant.
• Antonio Lejano v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 176389, December 14, 2010 — Cited for the principle that suppression of evidence violates due process rights, citing Brady v. Maryland.

• Article III, Section 1, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the right of every person to due process before deprivation of life, liberty, or property; applied to require compliance with procedural safeguards in preliminary investigation.
• Article III, Section 14, 1987 Constitution — Provides that no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process, and guarantees the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation; applied to require furnishing the complaint-affidavit to the respondent.
• Section 3, Rule 112, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Prescribes the procedure for preliminary investigation, including the requirement to attach copies of the complaint and supporting affidavits to the subpoena and the respondent's right to examine evidence; applied to find violation when complainant's evidence was not made available.
• Section 4, Rule II, Administrative Order No. 07 (Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman) — Provides for procedure in preliminary investigation before the Ombudsman, including service of orders and submission of counter-affidavits; paragraph (e) allowing resolution based on evidence on record when respondent cannot be served was deemed insufficient to cure due process violation when respondent later made himself available.

Bersamin, Martires, and Gesmundo, JJ., concurred.

• Leonen, J. — See dissenting opinion.